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

« The Music Industry's Star Witness In Their Case Against Kazaa | Main | Failure to Use Copyright Law »

December 05, 2004


To paraphrase: Someone produces a very cheap chemical duplicator that accepts a substance in pill/powder/liquid form in one end and is able to reproduce it (given raw materials) out of the other end - AND is able to provide a recipe file that can be shared on the web.

This is not inherently wrong, unfair, or unethical. It simply means that the ability for the drugs companies to obtain revenue at the point of sale of the drug is no longer viable - given they can no longer enforce their exclusive control over the source(s) of the drug.

The drugs companies would then have to adopt a new revenue mechanism, e.g. a subscribed commission. The drugs companies are still the only ones that provide new, tested, improved drugs. There is still a demand for this - despite far cheaper drug production technology.

I find it strange that people can so readily imagine that a highly valued product (development of new drugs) will suddenly cease to be sold simply because it can't be sold in the traditional way. Anyone who sells anything knows that you don't part with your product UNTIL you're assured that you'll be paid. New drugs would still be developed, but the drugs companies wouldn't reveal or release the recipe until they'd been paid for it.

The comments to this entry are closed.