Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 125 of 125

Thread: Patents - Friend or foe of capitalism?

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Knighted View Post
    Uh, no. Please go back and re-read the post you're replying to. This whole discussion has been about the hypothetical scenario of patent protections being removed from drugs. The reason that undercutters (generic producers) do not drive big pharma out of business today is BECAUSE of patent protections which grant the typical company 7-12 years of relatively competition-free sales to recoup the enormous R&D expenditures that they put forth to develop a drug. Take that away, and R&D expenditures will dry up virtually overnight, and so will new drug development. That is the precise topic of discussion here.
    Nonsense.

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/...dical-research
    Poorer countries encourage their drug companies to make cheaper generic alternatives to expensive branded ones or use other tools available at their disposal to help bring the price of medicines down to more affordable levels. But they face immense pressure from international institutions and multinational pharmaceutical corporations, even when generics and other options pursued are legitimate under international rules. For these multinationals, they’ve poured billions into some of these drugs and therefore want a patent system that will protect their investments for as long as possible.
    For the developing and poorer countries, as remote as these issues may seem, patents and intellectual property rights issues can mean life or death. (For example, at the end of the 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry lobbied the US government to threaten sanctions on South Africa for trying to produce generic drugs to fight its growing AIDS problem. It took huge public outcry to get the case dropped some 2 years later.)
    The establishment of the World Trade Organization … imposed US style intellectual property rights around the world. These rights were intended to reduce access to generic medicines and they succeeded.
    Developing countries paid a high price for this agreement. But what have they received in return? Drug companies spend more on advertising and marketing than on research, more on research on lifestyle drugs than on life saving drugs, and almost nothing on diseases that affect developing countries only. This is not surprising. Poor people cannot afford drugs, and drug companies make investments that yield the highest returns. The chief executive of Novartis, a drug company with a history of social responsibility, said “We have no model which would [meet] the need for new drugs in a sustainable way … You can’t expect for-profit organizations to do this on a large scale.”
    — Joseph Stiglitz (former World Bank Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner for economics), Scrooge and intellectual property rights, British Medical Journal, December 23, 2006, Volume 333, pp. 1279-1280



    Few have challenged or even recognized the unfair tax upon the unfortunate created by vastly overpriced products and services. There is a consistent pattern; the greater the need, the greater the overcharge. Though the need of those with physical disabilities is great, they have limited power to defend themselves. The first efforts to develop mechanical aids for people with physical problems were undoubtedly undertaken with noble intentions. Typically no profit was involved and much labor and time was donated as generous people tried to help the unfortunate. However, those who knew the value of these aids when monopolized claimed patent rights, and those with disabilities now must pay those monopolists. Witness the hearing aids… Each is only a tiny amplifier, yet costs ten to twenty times as much as a radio, which is hundreds of times larger and much more complicated.
    — J.W. Smith, The World’s Wasted Wealth 2, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p. 78.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Knighted View Post
    So you believe that money used in grant-based medical research, which is coming out of some anonymous donor's pockets and is taken and distributed at some "administrator's" behest, is going to be better and more wisely spent than money left in private hands with a profit incentive?
    Yes, of course. And both history and economics prove that I am right about that, and you are wrong. Pure for-profit research has almost never produced a significant medical advance because knowledge is a public good, and private interests can't invest efficiently in public goods. But grant-based research has produced breakthrough after breakthrough.
    If you believe that, then you must also believe that money taken from taxpayer's pockets and spent by government bureaucrats will be more wisely spent than money left in private hands.
    Yep, as long as it's spent on public goods. And history and economics prove me right about that, too. Somalia is full of people spending their private money according to their private decisions and priorities. You just don't know enough economics to know why that model is guaranteed to fail.
    I hate to tell you, but history isn't on your side on that one.
    ROTFL!! Oh, but it is, dumpling. Very much.
    Who's going to choose to spend more wisely? A group given a bag of money and told "Do with it what you want to develop drugs - it's free"
    Why even bother telling such stupid lies? Do you think that's how research grants are distributed now? You are just spewing stupid, dishonest garbage with no basis in fact because you have no actual arguments to offer.
    or a group given a bag of money, some of which is their own, and told that if they don't develop a successful drug, their money is gone - and if they do develop one, their money will triple?
    While financial incentives certainly matter, they are known to be ineffective in stimulating true creative work; and you would need to provide an argument that restrictive monopoly privileges are the only -- or at any rate the best -- way to implement such incentives. You will not be providing any such argument.
    Oh really?
    Yes, really.
    What if it's, say, AstraZeneca (or any other prominent drug company) that already has a strong reputation built up and the stringent quality and safety controls already needed. If you take away patents, what's stopping Astra from capitalizing on Pfizer's research and quickly mass producing identical pills the moment Pfizer's drug hits the shelves?
    Lack of product knowledge; fear of losing money in a competition with Pfizer; fear of losing money if the drug is not economically viable, or if it turns out to have dangerous side effects, etc.
    AstraZeneca wouldn't even need to spend R&D to develop drugs any longer - it would be more profitable to simply poach competitor's products.
    I've already proved that stupid claim false. If you were right, AstraZeneca would be making a fortune in generics. It isn't. Duh.
    Q: What happens when drug companies can no longer capture back in profit the money they spent in R&D? A: They quit spending money on R&D. Innovation dies.
    <yawn> Is that what has happened in the fashion industry"? Is that what has happened in the supplement industry?

    You clearly have not devoted even a nanosecond's honest thought to this issue.

  4. #123
    Pure for-profit research has almost never produced a significant medical advance because knowledge is a public good, and private interests can't invest efficiently in public goods.
    This is the most ridiculous thing you've written thus far. Knowledge is a public good and private interests can't invest efficiently in public goods? How do you explain every modern invention in this world, then? They all originated from "knowledge." I hate to break it to you, but the government didn't create them all - nearly every modern innovation was created by private interests with a profit motive. Let me make this easy for you, since you're so convinced that public money created all that is good in the world. Here are the 5 top selling drugs in the country: Lipitor, Advair, Plavix, Nexium, and Norvasc. I challenge you to find evidence that even TWO of the FIVE of these originated from publicly funded research. That's just 40% - that shouldn't be hard at all since you say "for-profit research has almost never produced a significant medical advance in history"

    Yep, as long as it's spent on public goods. And history and economics prove me right about that, too. Somalia is full of people spending their private money according to their private decisions and priorities. You just don't know enough economics to know why that model is guaranteed to fail.
    You sound like a liberal playing the old and worn out Somalia argument. Somalia has no effective government and nonexistant private property protection. This is a prerequisite for any society wishing to be successful by employing free market economic principles. If you're so convinced that history has proven you right, why not name a few examples where the government spending money on public goods has been so wildly successful? I can name 2 examples that haven't for every 1 that you think has.

    Is that what has happened in the fashion industry"?
    So I'm debating with one person who simply copies/pastes articles which fail to address any of the points in my posts, and another person who insists on comparing the pharmaceutical drug industry to the fashion industry as the basis for his entire argument. Unless someone shows up and presents a halfway reasonable argument or refutation to my points, I'm done.
    Last edited by Knighted; 05-16-2012 at 04:46 PM.

  5. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Knighted View Post

    So I'm debating with one person who simply copies/pastes articles which fail to address any of the points in my posts, and another person who insists on comparing the pharmaceutical drug industry to the fashion industry as the basis for his entire argument. Unless someone shows up and presents a halfway reasonable argument or refutation to my points, I'm done.
    I did, but you are free to ignore it (at your own rhetorical peril).
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Knighted View Post
    Knowledge is a public good and private interests can't invest efficiently in public goods?
    Correct.
    How do you explain every modern invention in this world, then?
    People smarter than you.
    They all originated from "knowledge."
    And...? Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something relevant?
    I hate to break it to you, but the government didn't create them all - nearly every modern innovation was created by private interests with a profit motive.
    Including all the innovations in the fashion industry...
    Let me make this easy for you, since you're so convinced that public money created all that is good in the world.
    Strawman fallacy.
    Here are the 5 top selling drugs in the country: Lipitor, Advair, Plavix, Nexium, and Norvasc. I challenge you to find evidence that even TWO of the FIVE of these originated from publicly funded research.
    First I would have to accept your assumption that sales revenue is the measure of medical merit. I don't. These drugs have many side effects and interactions, and in most cases the research demonstrating all-cause death reduction is at best equivocal.
    That's just 40% - that shouldn't be hard at all since you say "for-profit research has almost never produced a significant medical advance in history"
    Ability to generate billions of dollars in monopoly profits for drug companies is not the measure of significance of a medical advance, sorry.
    You sound like a liberal playing the old and worn out Somalia argument.
    It may be old, but it still refutes all "meeza hatesa gubmint" bull$#!+.
    Somalia has no effective government and nonexistant private property protection.
    OTC, it has very good "free market" private property protection: for those who can afford it.
    This is a prerequisite for any society wishing to be successful by employing free market economic principles.
    Funded how?
    If you're so convinced that history has proven you right, why not name a few examples where the government spending money on public goods has been so wildly successful?
    Hong Kong. Switzerland. Canada.
    I can name 2 examples that haven't for every 1 that you think has.
    Go ahead. I'm predicting you will fail.
    So I'm debating
    No, you're not. You wouldn't know debating if it bit you on the goolies.
    with one person who simply copies/pastes articles which fail to address any of the points in my posts,
    Ah, no. You are the one who has failed to address points, and no, chanting drug company talking points doesn't cut it.
    and another person who insists on comparing the pharmaceutical drug industry to the fashion industry as the basis for his entire argument.
    You have been refuted, and you have no answers. Simple.
    Unless someone shows up and presents a halfway reasonable argument or refutation to my points, I'm done.
    You're done anyway, dumpling.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345


Similar Threads

  1. America: Friend of Dictatorships / China: Friend of Democracies
    By Occam's Banana in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-13-2013, 08:07 PM
  2. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 03:25 AM
  3. Anarcho-capitalism vs Free Market Anti-Capitalism
    By awake in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 04:12 PM
  4. What about patents?
    By AutoDas in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 03-28-2008, 01:46 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-06-2008, 09:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •