3 ms·

Pharmaceuticals are the classic example of why patents are necessary. Billions of R&D to develop a product that can be produced by a competitor for pennies. Bu

Pharmaceuticals are the classic example of why patents are necessary. Billions of R&D to develop a product that can be produced by a competitor for pennies. But things like complex circuits would see drastic reduction in R&D if competitors could just make a copy. You'd save money on litigation, but it's not that much considering the size of the industries at play. And you'd probably see worse products after the short term.

bcg1 12y ago
Industry-specific concerns like that could easily be addressed privately by trade associations that have incentive to prevent the sort of mutually assured destruction that you describe.
- rhino369 12y ago
  You mean by creating an agreement to not compete? That is illegal. It effects all industries that have R&D, those are just good examples.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    We're discussing overhauls to the legal system - the fact that it's illegal now doesn't enter into it.
    - rhino369 12y ago
      I'll put it another way, it would be stupid to let entire industries write their own non-competition agreements. That is monopolist behavior. Unless the repeal of the Patent Act coincides with the repeal of the Sherman Act, it would be illegal still.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
chongli 12y ago
Pharmaceuticals are the classic example of why patents are necessary. Billions of R&D to develop a product that can be produced by a competitor for pennies. If you took more than a cursory glance at the pharmaceutical industry, you'd see this oft-repeated claim is bullshit. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions on marketing (as well as lobbying politicians and doctors) and attempting to re-patent old drugs as their patents expire. They spend very little on blue sky, highly innovative drug development. That is mainly the province of publicly funded research labs and universities. The one thing pharmaceutical companies actually do is cover the high cost of clinical trials. I see no reason we couldn't replace that with a publicly funded mechanism, do you?

bcg1 12y ago

Industry-specific concerns like that could easily be addressed privately by trade associations that have incentive to prevent the sort of mutually assured destruction that you describe.

rhino369 12y ago
You mean by creating an agreement to not compete? That is illegal. It effects all industries that have R&D, those are just good examples.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Karunamon 12y ago
  We're discussing overhauls to the legal system - the fact that it's illegal now doesn't enter into it.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    I'll put it another way, it would be stupid to let entire industries write their own non-competition agreements. That is monopolist behavior. Unless the repeal of the Patent Act coincides with the repeal of the Sherman Act, it would be illegal still.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

chongli 12y ago

Pharmaceuticals are the classic example of why patents are necessary. Billions of R&D to develop a product that can be produced by a competitor for pennies. If you took more than a cursory glance at the pharmaceutical industry, you'd see this oft-repeated claim is bullshit. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions on marketing (as well as lobbying politicians and doctors) and attempting to re-patent old drugs as their patents expire. They spend very little on blue sky, highly innovative drug development. That is mainly the province of publicly funded research labs and universities. The one thing pharmaceutical companies actually do is cover the high cost of clinical trials. I see no reason we couldn't replace that with a publicly funded mechanism, do you?