Re:The Same Pill That Costs $1,000 in America Sells for $4 i...
by hrktb on Wednesday December 30, 2015 @08:16AM
(#10811911)
> This comparison makes no sense. The vast majority of drugs are super cheap, and we have more choices then ever before. Only ones developed in the last 20 years have patents.
If as you say the majority of drugs are cheap, varied and didn't need patents, I'd say it's as good sign as any that we don't need patents for drugs.
I also think we need more research, both public and private. I understand that the current system relies on patent money to sustain itself, but I just don't buy that it has to be this way, or that it wouldn't work otherwise.
For the record I am not comparing industries, just saying that different models exists.
Re:The Same Pill That Costs $1,000 in America Sells for $4 i...
by Houshalter on Wednesday December 30, 2015 @04:18PM
(#10814431)
>If as you say the majority of drugs are cheap, varied and didn't need patents, I'd say it's as good sign as any that we don't need patents for drugs.
I think you are confused. Patents only last 15-20 years, not forever. The majority of drugs were developed by companies looking to own the patents. However they are now free to the public.
Without the patent system, they wouldn't exist at all.
The exact same is true in agriculture. You can patent a gene or a variety that you bred. But the only way to sell it to farmers is if it gives them higher yields than the previous stuff.
Agriculture did benefit a lot from research done by public universities. As did medicine. I'm hugely in favor of increasing public research in both areas. This is not not mutually exclusive with private research. It's not like there are a finite number of things that can be researched or invented.