3 ms·

>Of course, the government can just take the pills from them, but if they did that, then no more cures would be developed. There seems to be a common misunders

• WalterBright 10y ago
  The investors and the courts may have very different notions of the fair market value. If it's much less than the investors expect, expect no more cures. Consider that the whole point of the government taking it is the idea that the fair market price is too high. Also, there are many, many ways the government can take things without just compensation. For example, civil asset forfeiture. They could get the patent declared invalid. Laws and regulations are very complex, there are a lot of levers the government can pull.
  • cheriot 10y ago
    The point of the government taking it is that when there's only one seller people get greedy. That's why both sides have recourse of the courts. Considering the lives at stake, intentionally paying 20% more than the estimated value would be a better deal than the current system.
    • WalterBright 10y ago
      Price controls have a very long history of unintended negative consequences. Keep in mind that the cure was developed with the expectation of high profits, and with no cure all the lives at stake would have died. Suppose a cure for Alzheimer's never happens because price controls were put on the Hep C cure? Are you willing to risk it? The price will come down after the patent expires. People are better off with a high priced cure than no cure.