I also want to point this out: It's also interesting that your response to the fact that it's not the actual beneficiary who is using the knowledge, but a spec

I also want to point this out: It's also interesting that your response to the fact that it's not the actual beneficiary who is using the knowledge, but a speculator, was to invoke realpolitik. One problem with that is that the means produce the ends. The other is that the speculator doesn't have the characteristics that you use to justify your conclusion, but your conclusion is unchanged. You've per usual mischaracterized what I said. Anatoly raised a valid point: the specific scenario I drew up isn't actually an accurate match for the scenario at hand, and explained that the moral calculations would probably come out differently in a situation that more closely resembled the situation on the ground. Unlike you, he very carefully sketched out his own situation, premises, and conclusions, and pointed out explicitly where our views of the world diverged. He then asked what the moral choice would be for Bob -- whether Bob ought to shut down Jim's off-brand pharma factory or whether Bob ought to let Jim stay in business. Given such a well-formed approach I felt it warranted a proper reply. I first explained why as a practical matter if Bob is an elected representative -- and thereby accountable to his constituents in some fashion -- the incentives for Bob almost certainly tip in favor of Bob's letting Jim continue. One thing I admittedly elided somewhat was the relationship between "Bob's incentives as his constituent's elected representative" and "Bob's moral obligations as his constituent's elected representative"; there are entire fields of political philosophy that try to nail that down and getting dragged into it in this context is pretty much a derail. Suffice to say that yes: Bob is clearly incentivized to allow Jim to continue operating due to the situation Bob is in -- whether Bob is being moral to do so -- and (unstated but implied) to the extent you think that the moral balance generally tips in favor of saving lives now (at the expense of ignoring some patents) instead of preserving the integrity of the patent system (at the expense of deaths) then Bob is, additionally, morally correct to act on those incentives. I then pointed out that that analysis only applied if Bob was an elected representative. The only mention of realpolitik was in one of the explanations for why Bob would be incentivized to allow Jim's explanation to continue; it was in the context of a hypothetical defense he might offer to his constituents after he shut down Jim's factory. The realpolitik-derived explanation Bob could offer was that even though he might personally approve of Jim's operation allowing the operation to continue would jeopardize other trade agreements, with worse consequences than whatever fallout derived from shutting down Jim. I then explained this was a politically weak explanation, as it made Bob look lame for having agreed to such crappy trade terms to begin with; given that it's a weak explanation that makes Bob look bad he'd be incentivized not to wind up in a situation in which he'd have to proffer that defense. If what you got from that response was "realpolitik! that's another word I don't like" I give up.