> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > And pharmacutical corporations are still evil greedy vile money > > woshiping > > > > pigs, only developing therapies they can patent. > > > > > > You don't think you are evil, right Fool? > > > > What is evil? > > > > These malicious corporations that could develop all kinds of medical > > treatments, but instead only develop ones they can patent, are the true > > essence of evil. > > Why don't you raise the money to develop one that other people will make a > ton of money on, leaving you broke? Remember when you said people would > still develop things if they couldn't patent them?
> Now are you saying they > won't because its evil? When did I ever say that? Let me be clear: Patents are a perversion of nature, evil, vile, and a corruption of human rights and the market system. All Monopolies are evil, and artificial monopolies are the most evil of all (right up there with Country music on the scale of evil). You have intertwined your ideology around a fallacy that corporate propaganda has been poisoning the public with. If there were no patents companies would still make drugs. You know why? Because it just _so_ easy for their competitors to snap their fingers and develop the same products without knowing how the original company made it, what steps were involved what technology was required. I mean come on it's just so easy that I could write an emulator for the PS2 in ten minutes and have it never fail, it is just so easy to figure these things out. Competition is almost never a bad thing, certainly not in the market. Being forced to compete would ensure that they would produce quality products that work. And they wouldn't stop making useful drugs when patents run out only to replace them with inferior drugs that do the same thing. Furthermore I think that some thing are to important to be allowed to be controlled by corporations. The Government could develop the infrastructure to create drugs, even unprofitable drugs, that the market needs, not drugs that make the most money. There was a drug one of the drug companies had a patent for. It was found to be useful for treating a very specific form of a fatal cancer that only a few thousand people have. They sat on it for more than 7 years, doing nothing, because their was 'no market' for it, despite the fact that it could have been a useful remedy. It turn out that when they did test it on the subjects, in a very short period of time the people who were otherwise dying of this cancer, taking this medicine had tumor reductions of something like ~90 percent. > Doesn't this just show that you are wrong about what would happen if > patents were abolished? No. > Out of curiosity, should other companies also give their products away to > poor people? Sure. > IMHO, what we see here is the tragedy of the commons. I'm not opposed to > taxpayer money being used to develop unpatentable techniques, with the > government charging any company that uses these techniques a fee. But, you > really can't expect a company to spend money developing something all of > its competitors will use for free. Sure I can. It worked for 99.999 percent of human history. When you raise the tide, all boat float higher. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
