🚀 go-pugleaf

rjb@ipsa.reuter.com (Ron Bodkin) writes:
> Why would drug companies
>spend mega-bucks on research if they can't recoup their investment ...?

This is a prevailing counter-argument to my argument that patents
granted for pharmaceutical products stifle competition, and it's
not surprising someone would raise it.  (Unfortunately this is in
the wrong newsgroup, so forgive me for not knowing where to post it:
there are over 900 newsgroups and I've long ago given up trying to
keep up with very many of them.  Sci.med.aids is obviously not the
right place for this one, but I digress yet further...)

So I'll also focus this back on "why would software companies spend
megabucks on research if they can't recoup their investment?", which
is really the same issue but doesn't threaten lives the way drug
patents do.

The answer to this is that patent reform must be thought out in a global
sense, considering the entire R&D arena.  A simplistic approach of
just dumping drug and software patents entirely would create exactly
the backlash feared by this poster, namely that companies would
initially dump their drug and software R&D in retaliation to the
patent office's action.  (It's very similar to what has happened with
farm subsidies:  long ago, agriculture did just fine without the
need for artificial props like government subsidies.  Nowadays, it's
quite true that agriculture would collapse if the subsidies were
suddenly dropped.  So the taxpayer and the consumer are both stuck.)

The question here is really:  are we heading in the right direction
with our patent laws?

My answer is a resounding no, considering what has happened in the 1980s.
Let's head back in the right direction.

-rich