4 ms·

> I’m not sure radicalising this debate helps anyone. Oh but it does. That’s in part how we ended slavery and gave women full human rights and citizenship. If

> I’m not sure radicalising this debate helps anyone. Oh but it does. That’s in part how we ended slavery and gave women full human rights and citizenship. If anything radical ideas shift the Overton window into making progress actually happen. The second point is that the only correct position here is the radical one: as far as I can tell, the truth here is that (i) patents do far more harm than good, and (ii) they cannot be fixed into more good than harm. Therefore, they should be abolished, plain and simple. Less radical positions may look reasonable, be more politically acceptable… but the only reality they’d be based on would be the flaws of our human minds and the existing power structures of our society. Because of those I indeed only have the faintest hope about patents being abolished in the foreseeable future. At best I’m hoping for some narrowing down: in scope, duration, or a strengthening of due process (mostly prior art). But I have yet to be convinced that the best course of action isn’t the complete and utter abolition of the entire patent system. Now one could argue that that patents are a useful tool in our exploitation of the South, and losing it might weaken our position and ultimately make us a tad poorer as the South emancipates. That might even be true, see what happened for the COVID vaccines. But I don’t think this argument would win any votes around here.

TimPC 3y ago
Abolishing patents is likely to substantially hinder innovation. Maybe if it is accompanied by reasonable changes to other processes. But without patent protection there is a zero reason to spend $2 billion to $3 billion to get a drug through FDA trials when a competitor can make a generic afterwards for roughly $5 million and undercut you dramatically in the market as a result. People complain about patents endlessly without offering a realistic solve for this problem and think that innovation in fields where innovation is expensive won't be hampered at all despite this clearly not being the case.
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  > But without patent protection there is a zero reason to spend $2 billion to $3 billion to get a drug through FDA trials when a competitor can make a generic afterwards for roughly $5 million and undercut you dramatically in the market as a result. I see. The solution here is simple: let the private labs go bankrupt, hire their researchers in public facilities. You’ll get your innovation back. As for the costs, well, sure you need to pay those researchers, but you get most of that back in the form of much cheaper medication. I mean, why keep capitalism in the areas where it is so obviously failing? I want effective roads, schools, energy, water, hospitals, mass transportation… along with health insurance, retirement plans, unemployment insurance… and for all of those, the best way I know of is to make them public. And while we’re at it I’d like some democratically run media that aren’t owned by a bunch of ludicrously rich people, so I don’t get automatic propaganda about why making the above public doesn’t work. Because it does. I’m living in France, I’ve seen it work. > People complain about patents endlessly without offering a realistic solve for this problem I think I just did. But you have to accept that it means reducing the scope of Capitalism, if not outright ending it. If you don’t, well… explain to me how Capitalism will somehow not burn our planet to a crisp and depletes its resources. Because as far as I can tell the "only system that works" will not work for long. It cannot. Because Physics. Thus it will end, one way or another, and it’d be nice if it didn’t take the world along with it.

TimPC 3y ago

Abolishing patents is likely to substantially hinder innovation. Maybe if it is accompanied by reasonable changes to other processes. But without patent protection there is a zero reason to spend $2 billion to $3 billion to get a drug through FDA trials when a competitor can make a generic afterwards for roughly $5 million and undercut you dramatically in the market as a result. People complain about patents endlessly without offering a realistic solve for this problem and think that innovation in fields where innovation is expensive won't be hampered at all despite this clearly not being the case.

loup-vaillant 3y ago
> But without patent protection there is a zero reason to spend $2 billion to $3 billion to get a drug through FDA trials when a competitor can make a generic afterwards for roughly $5 million and undercut you dramatically in the market as a result. I see. The solution here is simple: let the private labs go bankrupt, hire their researchers in public facilities. You’ll get your innovation back. As for the costs, well, sure you need to pay those researchers, but you get most of that back in the form of much cheaper medication. I mean, why keep capitalism in the areas where it is so obviously failing? I want effective roads, schools, energy, water, hospitals, mass transportation… along with health insurance, retirement plans, unemployment insurance… and for all of those, the best way I know of is to make them public. And while we’re at it I’d like some democratically run media that aren’t owned by a bunch of ludicrously rich people, so I don’t get automatic propaganda about why making the above public doesn’t work. Because it does. I’m living in France, I’ve seen it work. > People complain about patents endlessly without offering a realistic solve for this problem I think I just did. But you have to accept that it means reducing the scope of Capitalism, if not outright ending it. If you don’t, well… explain to me how Capitalism will somehow not burn our planet to a crisp and depletes its resources. Because as far as I can tell the "only system that works" will not work for long. It cannot. Because Physics. Thus it will end, one way or another, and it’d be nice if it didn’t take the world along with it.