1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote
Case from 1950, FDA was founded in 1906, so this is an argument against not for. Since the FDA was not able to do it's job.
The police don't catch all criminals, therefore we shouldn't have police.
It happens all the time, you just don't hear about it.
A concrete example please. I happen to be a chemist (as in a scientist, not a pharmacist; to be clear) and have never heard of this happening (that's not to say it doesn't; I'm not an organic chemist, so it's not in my field - but I think I would hear if it does happen).
Nothing wrong with profit.
When it coincides with the consumers interest. Which isn't nearly as ubiquitous a situation as many capitalists like to think.
And exploitation can only happen for so long, until people move away from that company. So if for instance Microsoft was exploiting it's customers, they would move to Apple. Microsoft would have to stop in order to survive.
Apple is great example of why what you just said isn't true. It also relies on consumers being aware of the exploitation. The way pharma companies can try and manipulate/hide trial data is somewhat like a rootkit hiding itself on your computer. Unless you're suggesting that everyone spends three years doing a statistic degree so they can read the papers and spot this you're living in fairy land...
No, I said I can imagine you want protection from the same institution that is demanding from you to make a lot of costs.
In that case I have no idea what you're trying to say here since, as far as I can understand it, you're contradicting yourself.
Then company A made a terrible investment decision, researching a product that could be copied so easily. And how would B know, that A's idea is worth copying? It would first have to become a success. Then A would end up with 90% market share and B with 10%, B would then have to get the product to market, use up it's billion dollars to catch up, while A already releases a new version. B would constantly trail behind A.
So you don't want any drugs? Or any new materials? Or any invention/discovery, really, since it's easy to repeat what someone else has already done. Any article in the scientific literature (or patent, for that matter) should contain information that any competent scientist could reproduce the work done. The fact is that once it's been done; it's easy to copy. There is no way to mitigate this; you can't bring out a "new version" of a drug (strictly speaking you can make some minor tweaks but it's essentially a whole new drug in that case and is treated as such). I would suggest you try and get some research experience. (From a business perspective what you say may be faultless; but it would mean that our technology stagnated - there would be no new invention or discovery - precisely the situation patents were introduced prevent.)
Imagine this, company A still spends it's billion, but government awards the patent to company B. Now company A is prohibited from even entering the marketplace.
And that's why R&D intensive companies guard their secrets very strongly.
I don't see any concrete example in that link.
Fine, let's try this one. The markets are pushing companies to do things that are illegal. The flogs the companies when they're caught off the straight and narrow (in theory, at least - I wouldn't pretend the justice system is perfect).
Let's take airbags for example. Cars have had airbags long before they were made compulsory.
I'm not aware they are compulsory (in the UK, at least). But I that's somewhat different. Anyone can stick something in a car and say it will make you safer and people will buy it. But how do we know the car manufacturers welding is up to scratch, for instance? The success of a specific safety feature on the market (even if it really does improve safety) doesn't mean that the less glamourous/well known/lay person identifiable safety issues are also supported by the market.
Same with safer fuel tanks.
I'm fairly sure that if a defficiency in the design or manufacture of your fuel tank results in your car exploding the manufacturer would be liable.
People should be able to decide for themselves how safe their car should be. Just not the issues that can harm other parties. That's why I totally agree with things like; minimum stopping distance, turn signals, brake lights, etc. etc.
Well I'm not a mechanical engineer. I've never welded in my life. I don't know which bits of metal are safe and which aren't. I am unable to decide for myself how safe my car is (and if you were to ask me should be the answer would (obviously) be "as safe as reasonably possible"). We all like to think we're competent to make such decision; the sad reality is we're not. (Also most safety issues overlap to others - if something breaks down in the middle of the motorway it will probably affect the other traffic; what about "innocent" passengers?)
The same applies to issues like drugs. I'm not a biochemist. I'm not a statistician. I can't possibly decide whether or not a drug is safe or analyse the outcome of a trial (let alone detect delibrate deception) - I have to rely on other people to do that for me. We call it regulation.
Government cannot come up with rules, just not with solutions. It has never provided one and on the occasion when they did pick one, they are often wrong. They are politically motivated, not motivated to pick the right solution.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. Yes, governments are politically motivated and it can be a struggle to get a sensible, evidence based approach guiding policy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. And a not-perfect policy is better than no policy (although a bad policy is clearly worse).
The spirit of the law is something entirely different then the real world implication.
Yes, but by that logic we would never have any rules. Ever.
That's what is wrong with our current mindset, we focus too much on spirit and too little on real world implication. That's why we push for agendas that sound nice, but have a devastating impact. We need more common sense.
On the contrast. Implementation has to be considered when drafting laws yes. But we can implement the agendas of patents and regulation in a way that is mostly beneficial. (I am not saying that is what the entirety of the current system is; but the principles are not inherently broken.)