2 ms·
>Trivially. By asserting that without intellectual property protection those drugs wouldn't have been invented That isn't trivial. It's stupid. It's a complete
by crdoconnor 11y ago
>Trivially. By asserting that without intellectual property protection those drugs wouldn't have been invented
That isn't trivial. It's stupid. It's a completely non-disprovable argument.
Plenty of innovations are created where creators voluntarily yields their rights and plenty of others are probably not created because the creator of it (under employment) isn't hugely keen on creating yet more property for his or her employer to exploit.
- throwaway160303 11y agohahahaha this place is going downhill. In fairness, maybe it's always been like this during the too-early/way-too-late timeframes. Sorry, but the world ain't full of copyleft warriors. People put their name on patents, in no small part because they immediately subsequently put that patent on their resumes. Nobody is denying themselves earning power - cash money - in order to protect the public interest from their big bad provider of paychecks. Especially since the public interest, here, means "the companies competing with my provider of paychecks".
- crdoconnor 11y ago>Sorry, but the world ain't full of copyleft warriors Linux is the most popular operating system. A legal ideology that presumes that could never happen is simply wrong.
- forrestthewoods 11y agoDoes it cost a billion dollars to bring a new flavor of Linux to market? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-new-pharmaceutical-drug-now-exceeds-2-5b/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-ne...