3 ms·

> not both[er] developing the drug further unless they were 100% certain it was the right one (which I've never seen) I don’t really understand this argument.

> not both[er] developing the drug further unless they were 100% certain it was the right one (which I've never seen) I don’t really understand this argument. Patent law is just another moat. If it doesn’t exist for all competitors, it’s just different baseline for calculations. The market is still big and attractive, so all those who give up will open space for those who figured out how to survive without patents. Likely this will lead to a bigger concentration of capital, because in the absence of patent protections you may need to spend more on security. But it is happening anyway for other reasons, so we have to deal with monopolies anyway.

refurb 3y ago
Please explain how, without patents, a company would choose to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to discovery a new molecule and get it approved, when another company could start selling it as well without any of the investment at all? Financially it makes zero sense. And if the logic is - well the government can fund the research (which is a huge stretch since Pharma R&D is several multiple of gov't funding today), ok, but then you end up paying for the medicine through taxes instead.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  >Please explain how, without patents, a company would choose to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to discovery a new molecule and get it approved, when another company could start selling it as well without any of the investment at all? >Financially it makes zero sense. Innovations in funding, protection of secrets etc do happen time to time, so even if I cannot give you satisfying answer now, it does not mean such answer does not exist. It took thousands of years to invent modern corporation and stock exchange. Cryptocurrencies are recent invention. Imagine some sort of pooled research, where all competitors/partners agree to compete only after the discovery, i.e. in production efficiency and costs, marketing etc, with some . Imagine some clever chemical engineering, where a pill is such a mixture of acting substance and harmless components that reverse engineering is too hard to complete without comparable budget. Maybe it will be something completely different that we will find obvious only after it is discovered.

refurb 3y ago

Please explain how, without patents, a company would choose to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to discovery a new molecule and get it approved, when another company could start selling it as well without any of the investment at all? Financially it makes zero sense. And if the logic is - well the government can fund the research (which is a huge stretch since Pharma R&D is several multiple of gov't funding today), ok, but then you end up paying for the medicine through taxes instead.

ivan_gammel 3y ago
>Please explain how, without patents, a company would choose to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to discovery a new molecule and get it approved, when another company could start selling it as well without any of the investment at all? >Financially it makes zero sense. Innovations in funding, protection of secrets etc do happen time to time, so even if I cannot give you satisfying answer now, it does not mean such answer does not exist. It took thousands of years to invent modern corporation and stock exchange. Cryptocurrencies are recent invention. Imagine some sort of pooled research, where all competitors/partners agree to compete only after the discovery, i.e. in production efficiency and costs, marketing etc, with some . Imagine some clever chemical engineering, where a pill is such a mixture of acting substance and harmless components that reverse engineering is too hard to complete without comparable budget. Maybe it will be something completely different that we will find obvious only after it is discovered.