6 ms·
It reconciles by coping. It's better to deal with the harsh reality of peaceful commerce than it is to continually mold an economy with abysmal, suppressive, a
by aric 13y ago
It reconciles by coping.
It's better to deal with the harsh reality of peaceful commerce than it is to continually mold an economy with abysmal, suppressive, artificial constraints. Such laws are overwhelmingly wielded by large corporations: groups of protected people who afford patent war chests, suck up the relatively small patents "of the little guy," who gladly suffer constraints, and whose dominion grows parasitically with every law they bend in their direction.
The answer for "incentivizing" progress has no clear path. But I know it should lie elsewhere from this current one, if we're to ever set our courses ethically. It must consist of peace. Peace means not using violence and not caging people just to mold corporate will. Incentives exist on one side. Many people are naturally driven to learn, research, create, and discover.
On the other side, that doesn't solve the economic drivers that act as a backbone. Obviously, that's where your question is focused. Given less control by corporations, I imagine time-to-market, mover advantage, and trade recognition would still be enough to create a very fertile economy. It would hardly lack in the catalysts that dive manufacturing and profit-based prospects and motives. I'd argue that it would increase those conditions beyond just the net-health increase of market access. The major difference would be an economy that becomes more decentralized with fewer mega-corporations and more p2p trade. The pace of drug design would not necessarily slow. Motives and rewards behind drug design would nevertheless change and certain aspects of that would slow.
I'm more sympathetic to trademark IP. Trademarks were a helpful stopgap against fraud in the evolution of the US economy. Yet, trademarks as we know them today could be logically disbanded in the future if the means which which to prove identities and dates of creation become more solidified into everyday life. Certain aspects of enforcement would probably linger on for consumer protection (e.g. selling exact, branded replicas of a product would be prohibited in areas where true confusion is likely to occur). I believe most people want to reward people and businesses who take chances, act transparently, and serve quality products and services, the more that information becomes readily flowing. Likewise, I believe most people want to disfavor the people who act fraudulently (presenting the works of others as their own).
Ultimately, I'd rather society cope with the human potential that occurs without the limitations of patents, rather than society coping with the human potential that occurs with the limitations of patents. This philosophy may or may not lead to more net gains superficially. However, I think it leads to more gains rationally and ethically.
- Snail_Commando 13y agoYour argument begs the question. > Ultimately, I'd rather society cope with the human potential that occurs without the limitations of patents, rather than society coping with the human potential that occurs with the limitations of patents. The use of patents in pharmaceutical research enhances human potential. Perhaps that is not the case in other industries, but that was not what I was talking about. The pharmaceutical patent system creates an incentive structure such that companies see it as rational to invest billions of dollars over the course of a decade or more, with the expectation that they will enjoy a period of time after completion (funding, research, approval, manufacturing) where they can enjoy a return on their investment. Without patent protection, when the research comes to fruition- all manufacturers can produce the drug at essentially zero cost (the actual industrial/manufacturing aspect of cost is a trivial fraction of total cost). Since the barriers to entry are so low, the product can be commoditized and the researcher's profit will be cannibalized. > Given less control by corporations, I imagine time-to-market, mover advantage, and trade recognition would still be enough to create a very fertile economy. This market is enabled by patent protection, not hindered by it. Without patent protection the pharmaceutical industry would be left with a free rider problem of disastrous proportions, risk aversion would sky rocket, and research will drift towards a race to the towards the bottom. There is a more insidious consequence as well. No patent protection will decrease humanity's net scientific knowledge. Or at least massively retard its growth. Without patents, companies are forced to rely on trade secrets. Secret formulas. Proprietary lock downs into perpetuity. There are no expiration dates on trade secrets. There is no scientific knowledge to be built on a foundation of trade secrets. This is almost like a bizzaro version of the software patent world-- where patents increase human knowledge, or at least put a down payment on it (relative to the alternative).
- aric 13y agoI am begging the question. It's important. But you're forcing presumption. You presume that drug patents lead to better 'results' and that this form of corporatism is one in which society should place its faith, at the expense of freer people. > This market is enabled by patent protection, not hindered by it. ... We disagree. I and many others do not support patents nor business-as-usual. It's pretty simple. I don't wake up in the morning and think about how I can continue to best serve the enrichment of particular pharmaceutical companies. What's insidious is clear. The insidious component to me in this whole equation is the one where people are led into a rather unquestioning belief that human potential -- be it in medical science and wherever -- would not exist or progress if it weren't for a framework that allows temporary market dominion of capital (and the monopolies that arise from this). It's nonsense. You've stated broad sweeping claims though. These claims very much do beg questions -- far more, to me, than any questions that result out of society having to cope in the absence of (punitive, violent) market constraints. My own presumption is in believing that, while answers that bridge a transition aren't definitive, at least the path should strive toward an ethical horizon. Personally, to me, a republic that uses collective force to inhibit [people from researching, selling, and building upon concepts and therapies] -- a society with patents -- is a shining example of insidious, unethical, corrupt behavior. The SCOTUS had a tiny bit of sense to revoke some of the patents on genes, at least, if we're to talk baby steps.