> This comparison makes no sense. The vast majority of drugs are super cheap, and we have more choices then ever before. Only ones developed in the last 20 year

> This comparison makes no sense. The vast majority of drugs are super cheap, and we have more choices then ever before. Only ones developed in the last 20 years have patents. If as you say the majority of drugs are cheap, varied and didn't need patents, I'd say it's as good sign as any that we don't need patents for drugs. I also think we need more research, both public and private. I understand that the current system relies on patent money to sustain itself, but I just don't buy that it has to be this way, or that it wouldn't work otherwise. For the record I am not comparing industries, just saying that different models exists.