5 ms·

One point I would like everyone to keep top of mind in this conversation: a patent monopoly is not a market. Prices are dictated by the government, which will a

One point I would like everyone to keep top of mind in this conversation: a patent monopoly is not a market. Prices are dictated by the government, which will arrest anyone besides the patent holder who tries to sell. In this case the price is set to "whatever the drug company wants to charge", but it could as well be set to $0 if the government so desired.

rayiner 8y ago
Yes and no. A patent exchanges short term protection for long term commoditization of the invention, which permits not only a market, but an extremely competitive one (because the invention has been documented and disseminated).
LyndsySimon 8y ago
> Prices are dictated by the government, which will arrest anyone besides the patent holder who tries to sell. I'd like to challenge this. Yes, the patent system allows for a time-limited monopoly for the inventor of a drug - but it does not, to my knowledge, in any way "dictate prices" for that drug. That is up to the owner of the patent, who rationally will optimize for profit. Optimizing for profit does not mean "charging as much as possible", either; it means "charging the amount resulting in the highest net profit". There is the supply and demand curve to take into account here.
- dan678 8y ago
  Unfortunately, optimizing for profit still puts too many people in a position where they go bankrupt or die because of lack of funds. It's not theory, this is happening today in the United States. We need reform.
  - okr 8y ago
    I agree in general. But lets not forget, without the incentive to make profit, someone would not have done the investment and work to invent something in the first place. So some treatment would not even exist at all.
    - dan678 8y ago
      I really dislike that argument. It seems to say that, without incentive of making profit, no great progress would be made. It's such a pessimistic view of humanity. Many great people have done amazing things with little to no regard of fame or fortune. I'm not denouncing capitalism, but jesus christ, can we acknowledge that blind pursuit of profit is starting to damage society as a whole.
      - okr 8y ago
        It seems to say that, but i did not say that. Each invention or each venture needs resources. Where do you get those from? One can say, people give something and out of this pot you support something bigger (taxes? charity? venture capital?) , and those who have the idea, the skill, the howto, they go for them. And everyone of them has to support their own families too. So all in all, society gets a profit by having people creating treatment, workers get their profit (time+skill for money), investors get a profit and owners maybe get an overproportial share of, what is being paid for it. I do not understand how this is a pessmistic view. I just see a lot of people being productive? But i admit, it is an ideal. In generally i also only hear all the bad stories.

rayiner 8y ago

Yes and no. A patent exchanges short term protection for long term commoditization of the invention, which permits not only a market, but an extremely competitive one (because the invention has been documented and disseminated).

LyndsySimon 8y ago

> Prices are dictated by the government, which will arrest anyone besides the patent holder who tries to sell. I'd like to challenge this. Yes, the patent system allows for a time-limited monopoly for the inventor of a drug - but it does not, to my knowledge, in any way "dictate prices" for that drug. That is up to the owner of the patent, who rationally will optimize for profit. Optimizing for profit does not mean "charging as much as possible", either; it means "charging the amount resulting in the highest net profit". There is the supply and demand curve to take into account here.

dan678 8y ago
Unfortunately, optimizing for profit still puts too many people in a position where they go bankrupt or die because of lack of funds. It's not theory, this is happening today in the United States. We need reform.
- okr 8y ago
  I agree in general. But lets not forget, without the incentive to make profit, someone would not have done the investment and work to invent something in the first place. So some treatment would not even exist at all.
  - dan678 8y ago
    I really dislike that argument. It seems to say that, without incentive of making profit, no great progress would be made. It's such a pessimistic view of humanity. Many great people have done amazing things with little to no regard of fame or fortune. I'm not denouncing capitalism, but jesus christ, can we acknowledge that blind pursuit of profit is starting to damage society as a whole.
    - okr 8y ago
      It seems to say that, but i did not say that. Each invention or each venture needs resources. Where do you get those from? One can say, people give something and out of this pot you support something bigger (taxes? charity? venture capital?) , and those who have the idea, the skill, the howto, they go for them. And everyone of them has to support their own families too. So all in all, society gets a profit by having people creating treatment, workers get their profit (time+skill for money), investors get a profit and owners maybe get an overproportial share of, what is being paid for it. I do not understand how this is a pessmistic view. I just see a lot of people being productive? But i admit, it is an ideal. In generally i also only hear all the bad stories.