Re:Gene therapy restores hearing to children with inherited ...
by chris_t on Sunday June 09, 2024 @11:25AM
(#40625068)
I agree with all of this. The example of the patent on steam engines is fascinating, thank you! It's certainly true government granted monopolies are far from the ideal incentive structure, with many downsides. (And lobbying for EG patent extensions likely IS rent-seeking). Advance market commitments and other systems likely have better characteristics.
I was rather objecting to the misuse of a technical term, and the idea that we should expect all innovation to happen without reasonable incentives.
Re:Gene therapy restores hearing to children with inherited ...
by GOD_Over_Djinn on Sunday June 09, 2024 @09:37PM
(#40629280)
> the idea that we should expect all innovation to happen without reasonable incentives.
As I said in another comment, the fact that the only “incentive” you’re capable of grasping is the opportunity to monetize this treatment, is deeply disappointing and a little bit scary.
Developing treatments for sick children is sufficiently incentivized simply by the fact that you are TREATING SICK CHILDREN. Not to mention the career advancement, fame, and prestige that these scientists and doctors rightfully enjoy as a result of their hard work and brilliance.
Frankly, I can hardly imagine how you came to have this viewpoint.
Other than economic logic, we have natural experiments to back this up: i.e. the steam engine patent granted to Watt and Boulton in 1772 and its chilling effect on engine duty improvement (and the explosion of progress after patent expiry), and the modern pharmaceutical industry developing most strongly precisely where chemical patents were not granted, in 19th C. continental Europe, and slowing down wherever patent protections were eventually introduced, at the request of rent seeking lobbyists.
https://fee.org/articles/do-patents-encourage-or-hinder-inno...
http://www.dklevine.com/papers/anew09.pdf