3 ms·

> Once the market decides that it is a better/faster/cheaper tool than the competitive product/process/genome, you've got, what, 7~10 years? Maybe? This assume

> Once the market decides that it is a better/faster/cheaper tool than the competitive product/process/genome, you've got, what, 7~10 years? Maybe? This assumes the "market" makes a good decision. It's not a God, it's just tool. Like any tool, it works well in some situations and not in others. One thing it's not good at is allocating resources based on need rather than on wealth. What about the people who need the product but can't afford it? What about the innovations that are delayed, and the innovations based on those innovations, and all the people that would benefit from them?

ci5er 11y ago
> What about the people who need the product but can't afford it? They can wait 7~10 years, no? Patents are not forever. Is your theory that billions should be allocated (somehow) to researching a list of things that some people somewhere need with no prospect of recouping that expense? And, if so, of the thousands of things that people think they need, which ones get priority? Bill Gates may be doing some cool things in this direction, but he's not an infinite resource.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > They can wait 7~10 years, no? Patents are not forever. For people with many illnesses it means death (literally, "forever"). For others, it means 7-10 years of suffering or debilitating illness. Regarding your other questions/points, I wonder if I misunderstand them because the answers are very well-known. Sorry if I'm missing something: > Is your theory that billions should be allocated (somehow) to researching a list of things that some people somewhere need with no prospect of recouping that expense? The enterprise of science has proceeded for centuries on exactly this basis, and society (via government) has funded it successfully. Much of what you benefit from now was funded by fellow citizens, past and present. > of the thousands of things that people think they need, which ones get priority? There is no definitive solution, of course, but this issue has long been addressesed by funding organizations such as the NSF, NIH, etc.

ci5er 11y ago

> What about the people who need the product but can't afford it? They can wait 7~10 years, no? Patents are not forever. Is your theory that billions should be allocated (somehow) to researching a list of things that some people somewhere need with no prospect of recouping that expense? And, if so, of the thousands of things that people think they need, which ones get priority? Bill Gates may be doing some cool things in this direction, but he's not an infinite resource.

hackuser 11y ago
> They can wait 7~10 years, no? Patents are not forever. For people with many illnesses it means death (literally, "forever"). For others, it means 7-10 years of suffering or debilitating illness. Regarding your other questions/points, I wonder if I misunderstand them because the answers are very well-known. Sorry if I'm missing something: > Is your theory that billions should be allocated (somehow) to researching a list of things that some people somewhere need with no prospect of recouping that expense? The enterprise of science has proceeded for centuries on exactly this basis, and society (via government) has funded it successfully. Much of what you benefit from now was funded by fellow citizens, past and present. > of the thousands of things that people think they need, which ones get priority? There is no definitive solution, of course, but this issue has long been addressesed by funding organizations such as the NSF, NIH, etc.