3 ms·

How do you reconcile a patentless world with things that require massive R&D budgets? Like it or not many industries require very complicated ideas that are ext

How do you reconcile a patentless world with things that require massive R&D budgets? Like it or not many industries require very complicated ideas that are extremely expensive and labor intensive to generate the idea. For example, new pharmaceuticals (of which there are very few being discovered) take over 10 years of R&D and cost multiple billions of dollars to whittle down ~10,000 candidates into a single government approved drug. But once that single drug has been identified from the haystack of failing options, and rigorously tested, and trialed in humans for years, recreating that molecule is quite trivial. The actual production is very cheap compared to the fact it took thousands of people billions of dollars over 10+ years to get there. This is just one example of how ideas can be very expensive to develop, but very cheap to copy.

moffkalast 3y ago
Frankly, I don't think such projects should be left up to the private sector to develop. If we did space travel that way we'd make the first moon landing in 2038. This sort of live saving research is the best contender for R&D by government grants, if it's a worthy cause it can be supported for a long time (like fusion is being), and when the solution is found it can be immediately shared and sold at cost for the benefit of everyone, not hoarded by one company and sold at a ridiculous price to people that are forced to buy it or die.
- jacobsimon 3y ago
  It’s a funny comment because I think you could also argue that the government misappropriated a huge amount of public money to put a man on the moon in the 1960s, when it should have invested that into medical research or better transportation infrastructure in America. The fact that the private sector hasn’t developed moon travel yet is a sign that it’s just not that important to most people, not a lack of productivity.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    Or maybe that the return on investment is data they can't directly commercialize. Though I guess they could auction off pieces of the moon to the highest bidder or something of the sort. But yes I think we can all agree that that money could've been better or at least far more efficiently spent, same goes for the US's colossal military budget. This is in a nutshell the whole mindset behind the EU's spending the way I see it - social programs first, science second, everything else third.
    - nradov 3y ago
      Enjoy it while it lasts. The EU countries have only been able to under spend on their militaries because of US security guarantees. That subsidy is coming to an end one way or another and they are rapidly increasing defense spending. That means austerity for social programs. In terms of novel drugs introduced per year (not just repackaging existing drugs), the EU as a bloc is consistently behind the US. So, their scientific spending doesn't seem to be paying off in pharmaceuticals.

moffkalast 3y ago

Frankly, I don't think such projects should be left up to the private sector to develop. If we did space travel that way we'd make the first moon landing in 2038. This sort of live saving research is the best contender for R&D by government grants, if it's a worthy cause it can be supported for a long time (like fusion is being), and when the solution is found it can be immediately shared and sold at cost for the benefit of everyone, not hoarded by one company and sold at a ridiculous price to people that are forced to buy it or die.

jacobsimon 3y ago
It’s a funny comment because I think you could also argue that the government misappropriated a huge amount of public money to put a man on the moon in the 1960s, when it should have invested that into medical research or better transportation infrastructure in America. The fact that the private sector hasn’t developed moon travel yet is a sign that it’s just not that important to most people, not a lack of productivity.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Or maybe that the return on investment is data they can't directly commercialize. Though I guess they could auction off pieces of the moon to the highest bidder or something of the sort. But yes I think we can all agree that that money could've been better or at least far more efficiently spent, same goes for the US's colossal military budget. This is in a nutshell the whole mindset behind the EU's spending the way I see it - social programs first, science second, everything else third.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Enjoy it while it lasts. The EU countries have only been able to under spend on their militaries because of US security guarantees. That subsidy is coming to an end one way or another and they are rapidly increasing defense spending. That means austerity for social programs. In terms of novel drugs introduced per year (not just repackaging existing drugs), the EU as a bloc is consistently behind the US. So, their scientific spending doesn't seem to be paying off in pharmaceuticals.