April 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« Failure to Use Copyright Law | Main | Companies Offer Legal Alternatives to File-Swapping »

December 08, 2004

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf68d53ef00d8346c8f1e69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Update: IP Thought Experiment:

Comments

<>

Yes. But, they wouldn't do this in the hypo, in the absence of strong IP. That's my point. Simply because you can't see that they'd simply stop releasing their drugs until they'd been assured of payment, simply because you can't see how the drug industry would remain commercially viable, DOES NOT MEAN it would be unviable.

It's like you're saying ooh, but say someone's walking along and they come to the edge of a cliff, well obviously they'd be mortally insured. Ipso facto cliffs are bad news for walking. Well, I'm saying it's a pretty silly observer who believes the walker will fail to stop, or will walk on air. If you think about it, the walker will stop, take stock of the situation and adjust their route.

My point is that in the advent of a domestic drugs duplication machine the world will have a great new technology (along with the downside of readily available narcotics). The drugs companies who don't like the prospect of changing their business model will no doubt winge about how unfair this new technololgy is, but hey, that's just new technology for you. It's not wrong, it just causes a tad of upheaval.

Sensible drugs companies will then sell their drug development services to governments, health insurance companies, and cartels of sufferers of particular diseases and their families. They'll also sell off their manufacturing plants given they're now largely redundant - which is fine (despite a load of people having to find new jobs).

IP protection, patents and copyright were designed for situations where they could be easily enforced. Moreover they were not intended to define what is ethical, right, or morally inalienable, but to provide commercial incentive to industry and the arts for the benefit of society.

Industry has no god given right to be protected from technological change.

You don't outlaw rainwater butts in order to protect the revenue of the national water industry. Well ok, maybe some countries do, but they're bloody stupid.

The comments to this entry are closed.