4 ms·

I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, but could you answer my point so I know exactly how it is that I am? In particular, exactly how is it that the large upfront R&

by nudge 16y ago

I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, but could you answer my point so I know exactly how it is that I am? In particular, exactly how is it that the large upfront R&D costs I mentioned would not be a problem in a patent-free world? Also, I wasn't assuming any kind of 'artificial encouragement'. I was talking about firms spending hundreds of millions of dollars researching drugs, and wanting to earn that back (and, obviously, more) through patent protection. There's nothing artificial about the kind of encouragement that comes from wanting to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
I didn't address that point because that point is irrelevant. I am not interested in the well being of a particular pharmaceutical firm. I am interested in the well being of the whole field. And I suspect, so are you. It looks like you think that for pharmaceutical to thrive, it needs corporation to be "encouraged" to invest lots of money. You also seem to think that patents are a major provider of that encouragement. If so, the introduction of the patent system should have accelerated innovation. Empirical evidence shows that it didn't. I see only 2 explanations: either patents are not an effective encouragement (compared to already existing ones), or their disadvantages nullifies the additional encouragement.
- nudge 16y ago
  Please just explain how it is that you think we would get new, expensive-to-develop drugs, if there were no guarantee of a limited monopoly for the inventor. Forget the abstract arguments about corporations being "encouraged" or whatever you think I think. Just tell me how it would work. If it helps, imagine that you run a pharmaceutical firm, and you have the choice to spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching a drug which, once perfected by your researchers, is not owned in any sense (even temporarily) by you, but rather immediately becomes a generic commodity worth fractions of a cent per unit, and which cannot possibly earn you back the money you spent developing it. In that situation, would you start the research? And if not, where will the new drugs come from?
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    > Just tell me how it would work. Ha ha, that's the beauty of it: I don't know. I just know it works. I know it from a source[1] which I consider reliable. And that source presented empirical observations which strongly support my view. You keep talking about how it would work, doing what's amounts to a thought experiment. That's valuable, but not nearly as good as actual observations in assessing how the world works. From the dawn of humanity, the Sun has been observed to rise from a direction and set to a roughly opposite direction. Why? How? For a very long time, no one knew. But only a fool would contradict that observation just because what he thinks of the sun doesn't fit what everybody sees. In short, when your view of the world doesn't fit the observations, update your view of the world. Now, I see very few ways in which you could still disagree with me: (1) You think I misreported my source. (2) You don't trust my source. (3) You know of very strong evidence which support your view and not mine. So which it is? [1]: Against Intellectual Monopoly
    - nudge 16y ago
      Alright, if you don't know how it would work, but you do know how it does work, tell me how it does work. What countries are you talking about, what years, what drugs? How did the companies cover the cost of research? What was in it for them? Why did they do it? I am perfectly willing to amend my views but so far you have done nothing but say you have evidence. Show me! I don't have time to read your source but I am happy to read what you quote as relevant.
      - loup-vaillant 16y ago
        > I am happy to read what you quote as relevant. Ah, now we're talking. So, chapter 9, page 247 http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf """ You may wonder why we are offering all these details about specific countries, patenting of chemical processes, and pharmaceutical products. For a very simple reason: if patents were a necessary requirement for pharmaceutical innovation as claimed by their supporters, the large historical and cross country variations in the patent protection of medical products should have had a dramatic impact on national pharmaceutical industries. In particular, at least between 1850 and 1980, most drugs and medical products should have been invented and produced in the United States and the United Kingdom, and very little if anything in continental Europe. Further, countries such as Italy, Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, Germany, should have been the laggards of the pharmaceutical industry until recently. Instead the opposite was true for longer than a century.""" I fear you would have to read "all these details about specific countries" if you want anything more substantial. That's 7 pages (from 241 to 247).
- weavejester 16y ago
  > If so, the introduction of the patent system should have accelerated innovation. This assumes that the cost of developing drugs has remained constant, of course.

by nudge 16y ago

loup-vaillant 16y ago

I didn't address that point because that point is irrelevant. I am not interested in the well being of a particular pharmaceutical firm. I am interested in the well being of the whole field. And I suspect, so are you. It looks like you think that for pharmaceutical to thrive, it needs corporation to be "encouraged" to invest lots of money. You also seem to think that patents are a major provider of that encouragement. If so, the introduction of the patent system should have accelerated innovation. Empirical evidence shows that it didn't. I see only 2 explanations: either patents are not an effective encouragement (compared to already existing ones), or their disadvantages nullifies the additional encouragement.

nudge 16y ago
Please just explain how it is that you think we would get new, expensive-to-develop drugs, if there were no guarantee of a limited monopoly for the inventor. Forget the abstract arguments about corporations being "encouraged" or whatever you think I think. Just tell me how it would work. If it helps, imagine that you run a pharmaceutical firm, and you have the choice to spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching a drug which, once perfected by your researchers, is not owned in any sense (even temporarily) by you, but rather immediately becomes a generic commodity worth fractions of a cent per unit, and which cannot possibly earn you back the money you spent developing it. In that situation, would you start the research? And if not, where will the new drugs come from?
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  > Just tell me how it would work. Ha ha, that's the beauty of it: I don't know. I just know it works. I know it from a source[1] which I consider reliable. And that source presented empirical observations which strongly support my view. You keep talking about how it would work, doing what's amounts to a thought experiment. That's valuable, but not nearly as good as actual observations in assessing how the world works. From the dawn of humanity, the Sun has been observed to rise from a direction and set to a roughly opposite direction. Why? How? For a very long time, no one knew. But only a fool would contradict that observation just because what he thinks of the sun doesn't fit what everybody sees. In short, when your view of the world doesn't fit the observations, update your view of the world. Now, I see very few ways in which you could still disagree with me: (1) You think I misreported my source. (2) You don't trust my source. (3) You know of very strong evidence which support your view and not mine. So which it is? [1]: Against Intellectual Monopoly
  - nudge 16y ago
    Alright, if you don't know how it would work, but you do know how it does work, tell me how it does work. What countries are you talking about, what years, what drugs? How did the companies cover the cost of research? What was in it for them? Why did they do it? I am perfectly willing to amend my views but so far you have done nothing but say you have evidence. Show me! I don't have time to read your source but I am happy to read what you quote as relevant.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      > I am happy to read what you quote as relevant. Ah, now we're talking. So, chapter 9, page 247 http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf """ You may wonder why we are offering all these details about specific countries, patenting of chemical processes, and pharmaceutical products. For a very simple reason: if patents were a necessary requirement for pharmaceutical innovation as claimed by their supporters, the large historical and cross country variations in the patent protection of medical products should have had a dramatic impact on national pharmaceutical industries. In particular, at least between 1850 and 1980, most drugs and medical products should have been invented and produced in the United States and the United Kingdom, and very little if anything in continental Europe. Further, countries such as Italy, Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, Germany, should have been the laggards of the pharmaceutical industry until recently. Instead the opposite was true for longer than a century.""" I fear you would have to read "all these details about specific countries" if you want anything more substantial. That's 7 pages (from 241 to 247).
weavejester 16y ago
> If so, the introduction of the patent system should have accelerated innovation. This assumes that the cost of developing drugs has remained constant, of course.