3 ms·
I'm not forgetting that at all. Of course they make enormous profits. But they would make no profits if they did not have a temporary monopoly on the drugs they
by nudge 16y ago
I'm not forgetting that at all. Of course they make enormous profits. But they would make no profits if they did not have a temporary monopoly on the drugs they invent, because others would sell it for cost price (next to nil) and they would never, ever recoup the money they spent developing the drug.
My point isn't that pharma companies don't make money. It's that if you took away patent protection, they wouldn't invest in new drugs, because they would never earn anything on those investments.
- loup-vaillant 16y agoHey, did you read me? New drugs are invented even when there is no patents around! Necessary investments are made even when there is no patent system! Introducing patents does not benefit pharmaceutical innovation. It has been observed empirically, in the real world. Your point here is wrong. Unless you can tell why the empirical evidence I speak of is inconclusive or non-existent, I suggest you accept it.
- nudge 16y agoYou just keep saying "it has been observed empirically". Name the drugs. edit: Also, explain (as I keep asking you to) how it is that the companies are to earn back the money spent on the R&D investments, if there are no patents. You say there is plenty of empirical evidence. Tell me how it is done.
- loup-vaillant 16y agoReference for outsiders: my only substantial argument so far is the quote in this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1497246 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1497246