UTVOLKeith
punished good deeds
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 5,012
- Likes
- 230
without patents where is the drive to innovate? There are too many willing to copy and make a quick buck and not enough who invest time and energy in innovation. Much of the system is broken but I view patents as a way to protect the ones driving change
where am I wrong?
without patents where is the drive to innovate? There are too many willing to copy and make a quick buck and not enough who invest time and energy in innovation. Much of the system is broken but I view patents as a way to protect the ones driving change
where am I wrong?
I didn't say they are always a no-brainer. I just see no incentive to invest billions in r&d only to have your product copied by Chinese sweatshop workers making pennies and your innovation wasted
the argument likely stems from a person's viewpoint of individual vs business
You're assuming people won't have an incentive to create without $X amount to offer them incentive. People create with the creation being the only incentive. Not to mention first to market is advantageous enough to provide sufficient incentive in terms of profitability.
Take the example of artists and copyright, whether we are talking visual art or music, the internet is littered with free content all over the place. Free software? Someone created that.
Patents divert resources into certain forms of creation. It's a case of the seen vs the unseen. We don't realize the ways in which the world would improve without patents, all we can think about is potential drawbacks to eliminating patent law.
Honestly, if you haven't read much of anything against patents you're going to think patents are a no-brainer and scoff at the alternative. Educate yourself and learn the other side of the issue. Patents should be extremely controversial.
Against Intellectual Monopoly
Interesting book. Its over my head because of the economic terminology but its hard for me to see an upside to elimination of patents for new drugs. Any new drug (and we desperately need new antibiotics) takes an enormous amount of money to develop and bring to market. If you took away the exclusivity, why would anyone want to do the necessary clinical research and manufacturing development for a new drug?
Well, in many/most cases the largest cost to R&D of pharmaceuticals is getting through the FDA approval process. My solution is to scale back the FDA. It's almost an economic certainty that the FDA kills more people than they save, and it's likely by a large margin:
- if they approve a dangerous drug, typically you would expect the consequence to be a few people dying before the drug is recalled
- if they take 10 years to test a drug that saves 5000 lives a year, 50,000 people just died
Well, in many/most cases the largest cost to R&D of pharmaceuticals is getting through the FDA approval process. My solution is to scale back the FDA. It's almost an economic certainty that the FDA kills more people than they save, and it's likely by a large margin:
- if they approve a dangerous drug, typically you would expect the consequence to be a few people dying before the drug is recalled
- if they take 10 years to test a drug that saves 5000 lives a year, 50,000 people just died
Quality of products would improve dramatically.
IMO that's debatable. The sheer number of drugs released with dangerous side effects would explode. This isn't limited to just life-saving ones.
I have no love for the FDA and their processes but I view a version of them as a necessary evil
in what way? You think and iphone would be equivalent to an iphon?
That's debatable. FDA disapproval isn't the only consequence of releasing a drug that causes harm. The reputation of the firm is at stake, not to mention the litigation. Pharmaceutical companies would still have an incentive to do their due diligence.