Bill Gates ... Microsoft and the big screw >>> patents > capatilism straight out

#8
#8
tommy-lee-wtf-meme-generator-i-m-sorry-but-did-i-just-miss-something-aa7d52.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10
#10
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?
 
#11
#11
Why would anyone take the time and money to create anything if they weren't protected by patents? We wouldn't have made it out if the industrial revolution era without them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
utvolpj said:
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?
Click to expand...

The advancement in modern medicine is a perfect example of this. I doubt there would be great strides in the research and development of boner pills without patents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
utvolpj said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
utvolpj said:
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
Click to expand...

Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

What would you be investing billions in in this scenario? There definitely will be less of this kind of R&D going on, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Billionaire corporations don't share information. In the absence of patents I see great minds enjoying open communication. Putting more minds and eyeballs on the world's problems might be the best way to solve them.

Also, from a non-profitability standpoint, maybe the world would be better off if these geniuses weren't focusing on inventing things that are marketable. Like maybe we'd already have achieved Tesla's vision of wireless and free electricity.
 
#18
#18
n_huffhines said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
#19
#19
OldandStillaVol said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
#20
#20
n_huffhines said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree that the FDA is a barrier to new drugs. But suppose there wasn't an FDA. A new drug still needs to be tested in clinical research to determine its efficacy/safety albeit in smaller numbers, and manufacturing can still be very costly. So, instead of taking a billion dollars to develop, it might be 300 million - not many folks have that type of cash to risk. And I certainly do NOT want the government to take over drug development.
 
#22
#22
n_huffhines said:
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
Click to expand...

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

TVOLS said:
Quality of products would improve dramatically.
Click to expand...

in what way? You think and iphone would be equivalent to an iphon?
 
#23
#23
utvolpj said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
#25
#25
n_huffhines said:
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.
Click to expand...

you say firm and not some hit and run producer. If there are no regs then the public has zero clue what is good or bad.

in a vacuum these ideas work but I just don't see it when dealing with people who have no problem choosing money over someone's life
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top