3 ms·
I think in general scientific discoveries (pharmaceuticals, algorithms etc) should not be granted monopolistic production rights, but rather monopolistic royalt
by rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
I think in general scientific discoveries (pharmaceuticals, algorithms etc) should not be granted monopolistic production rights, but rather monopolistic royalty rights.
So, for example, if you invented Viagara, and every pharma company in the world figured out how to make it cheaper in their own way, they're free to make it but they have to pay the creator (individual or corporation) a royalty fee to do so.
I think royalties are a better way to incentivize innovation while not allowing patent protections to stifle the market as a whole.
- Houshalter 10y agoThe problem is there is no objective way to set the price of the royalty. Pharma companies won't invest in a drug that is only worth $1 per pill. And some pills will need to be taken for a lifetime, while others only need to be taken once - but the value of curing a disease is the same.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoYeah that's a good point. Maybe instead it could be a fee you could have to pay the creator to sell the same thing up to some limit, maybe determined by the creator's market price?
- dreamdu5t 10y agoSo we should pay royalties for using Calculus? Do we need to pay royalties everytime we use certain equations? Ridiculous.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoPatents expire.