There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010)

Re:There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010) by MagnumOpus on Friday April 16, 2021 @07:48AM (#26832706)

> develop an effective cure for a pandemic within a year of the pandemic starting [...] You can maybe first-principles your way to an idea of a way to produce large amounts of novel, working medicine quickly without IP law, but that's at best theorycrafting and doesn't have a whole lot of evidence backing it up AFAIK

Are you aware that an effective Oxford COVID vaccine was developed by a university without the pharma industry IP protection and funding? Are you aware that it is being manufactured by multiple pharma companies at-cost?

Believe it or not, quite a few people are motivated to help fellow humans survive a pandemic even if does not create shareholder value or a billion-dollar patent portfolio.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010) by reissbaker on Friday April 16, 2021 @11:30PM (#26841388)

Oxford, like all research universities, owns and enforces IP. It does have "IP protection" and is an important part of the pharma industry.

Oxford, their partners AstraZeneca, as well as Johnson & Johnson (the latter two being pharma companies!) have all committed to distributing at cost — but not at a loss. They want to get paid back. The way they're getting paid back is because they can enforce IP law. If anyone could copy them without paying, as the author is proposing, they would not be able to sustain this kind of research.

At cost is very different than not enforcing IP law. IP law is required for "at cost." Otherwise it's distributed at a loss.

[ Parent | on HN ]