4 ms·

I suspect that without exclusive licensing, many startups founded to commercialise this sort of research simply wouldn't get funded.

• sitkack 12y ago
  I argue that startups are probably not best way to commercialize this kind of scientific research. Our world of startups is more a gold rush with VCs taking a lions share of the resources. There is an inherent moral flaw in having exclusive licensing over life saving technology.
  • crusso 12y ago
    What if having an exclusive license statistically saves more lives in the long run?
    • sitkack 12y ago
      This line of reasoning is inherently fallacious. If what you said is true, then I would change my mind.
      • crusso 12y ago
        It's not, inherently fallacious. It may be counter-intuitive to you, but that is by no means a fallacy.
        • sitkack 12y ago
          It really is, what if <thing is better>? There is nothing to argue against. So like I said, I would change my mind, statistically, in the long run, towards the better thing. Still fallacious.
          • crusso 12y ago
            You stated: "There is an inherent moral flaw in having exclusive licensing over life saving technology." I simply asked you to consider for the sake of argument that more lives may be saved under an exclusive licensing framework. How is that an "inherent moral flaw"? It certainly isn't "inherently fallacious". Neither one of us has numbers that statistically validate things in either direction - but I'm not closing my mind off to reasonable possibilities.