3 ms·

And everything else for that matter.

• dnautics 13y ago
  "except for pharmaceuticals" (according to Posner, and notch) (I happen to disagree)
  • bryanlarsen 13y ago
    You're probably better off designing an alternative protection scheme for pharmaceuticals. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason that pharmaceuticals really need patent protection is that the huge regulatory costs are borne by the patent holder; generics can free-ride. Fix this problem and a viable funding model for pharmaceuticals can emerge, even without patent protection.
    • oleganza 13y ago
      I agree. But with an annoying wording correction: no one needs violent protection. People claim the need to be protected from some other people's actions via brutal means. I can also claim that I need some protection against a smile on your face. If I'm powerful and crazy enough I can even get a law passed "against cultural harassment" using which I may drag you to court and maybe prison. If a pharmaceutical guy cannot figure out how to make a profitable business without violent protection, it's not mine or your problem. If we cannot figure out how to make efficient drugs peacefully without inventing "patents" and "licenses" (that basically allow bullying others), then it's our personal problem.