3 ms·

This is the original and first argument for patents and copyright. The point is that it is very naive. Patents don't actually work that way. No engineer looks

by ploxiln 12y ago

This is the original and first argument for patents and copyright. The point is that it is very naive. Patents don't actually work that way. No engineer looks at a patent in order to make something. Have you ever read a patent? A few that cover useful technologies? They do not provide information useful for implementing anything useful, they only use strange language to cover a couple related ideas as generally as possible so they can apply to as many independent creations as possible, to maximize their offensive, defensive, and monetary value. Copyright has been extended to last way way too long and the idea of it is often abused to threaten people who are actually abiding by the law with expensive and hugely inconvenient court cases. Throwing out copyright altogether would probably have strange effects and not be a good idea. Throwing out the patent system would be quite fine. Patents are literally only used to stop things from being made, never to enable something to be made.

TheCraiggers 12y ago
>Throwing out the patent system would be quite fine. Patents are literally only used to stop things from being made, never to enable something to be made. I don't think you're considering the bigger picture here. For example: it costs billions of USD to create a normal prescription drug. That's an insanely serious investment. How likely do you think that investors will be willing to help fund drug research when a month after your new wonder drug hits shelves there are generics sitting right along side it? Generics which cost considerably less because they don't have to recoup all that R&D. Same thing applies to any other product with a sizable R&D budget. Now, I'm definitely not saying the current patent system is without problems, but saying that patents never enable development is a tad short-sighted in my opinion.
- ploxiln 12y ago
  Well you're right, drug companies bankrolling clinical trials is the biggest (and only) real argument for keeping patents. On the other hand, drug companies mostly develop lifestyle drugs these days. Drugs that cure people are less subjective and not profitable enough. I'd bet most of the real medical research still comes from academics sponsored by government, *-for-the-cure fundraising organizations, etc.

by ploxiln 12y ago

TheCraiggers 12y ago

>Throwing out the patent system would be quite fine. Patents are literally only used to stop things from being made, never to enable something to be made. I don't think you're considering the bigger picture here. For example: it costs billions of USD to create a normal prescription drug. That's an insanely serious investment. How likely do you think that investors will be willing to help fund drug research when a month after your new wonder drug hits shelves there are generics sitting right along side it? Generics which cost considerably less because they don't have to recoup all that R&D. Same thing applies to any other product with a sizable R&D budget. Now, I'm definitely not saying the current patent system is without problems, but saying that patents never enable development is a tad short-sighted in my opinion.

ploxiln 12y ago
Well you're right, drug companies bankrolling clinical trials is the biggest (and only) real argument for keeping patents. On the other hand, drug companies mostly develop lifestyle drugs these days. Drugs that cure people are less subjective and not profitable enough. I'd bet most of the real medical research still comes from academics sponsored by government, *-for-the-cure fundraising organizations, etc.