Comment on Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk would like to ‘delete all IP law’ | TechCrunch
Auntievenim@lemmy.world 5 days agoWe already fund the research of new drugs almost entirely through publicly funded projects which then HAND OVER the patent rights to whichever company has the most former board members in the executive branch at the time.
I watched it happen in real time during covid while working for the DPH. Those companies produce NOTHING. They are the literal obstacle to creating new medicines and making them widely available.
I’m against the context of the main post but putting on a cape for medical patents is wild. The entirety of healthcare in america is inexcusable. Let’s stay focused on the AI tech oligarchs robbing us of our futures and attempting to frame it as a concern with intellectual property.
If it’s state funded then that’s obviously a different matter.
But usually it’s a company making drugs, and they’d go bust if they spent billions developing a drug and got zero money back. Then there would be far fewer drugs made.
Be practical. Letting people die for ideological reasons is not a good thing.
How, when more companies would be able to develop the same drug? And they don’t develop drugs, they develop ways to extend their patents.
More companies will develop that drug.
But think of it this way. You’re the CEO of a pharmaceutical company that makes drugs, vaccines, etc that saves lives. You do this for a profit.
You’re presented with a plan to make a drug that, idk, lessens the symptoms of Crohn’s Disease. It’ll cost $2 billion to create and bring to market.
After it’s done being created, and the drug spends 10+ years in clinical testing, it’s on shelves. You have to price each box at $10 in order to break even after 5 years, so you do so.
But the law has changed, now anybody can manufacture the drug. A competitor who didn’t foot any of the development costs or do any of the hard work is selling each box at $0.80. you can’t compete with that, you make an enormous loss and your company edges closer to bankruptcy.
One of your workers comes to you with plans for a $2bn project that will hopefully reduce migraines. Given lessons learned from the previous example, do you go ahead with the plan? Will the board even let you?
I agree that IP laws in the sector need to be pared down, but scrapping them entirely would prevent any company from creating new drugs, as they’d be absolutely certain they wouldn’t be able to recoup development and regulatory hurdle costs.
It is the world we should live in though. And it’s the one we should be advocating for instead of justifying the current system that privatizes profits of lifesaving medications and vaccines over making them widely available at the lowest possible cost to society and consumers.
We can get to the point you’re talking to in your last paragraph, we just have to stop letting the people who benefit from the current system demand the conversation be centered around the impact it has on them. You and I sure as fuck don’t benefit from patents. We would benefit from open source medicine. I don’t really care if nobody is able to maintain a billion dollar company based off withholding and silo-ing information.
I wrote a long winded reply but honestly I’ll just say that your second paragraph is entirely based on fiction and your final paragraph is precisely what for profit medicine is designed to do. Profit is a purely ideological drive, medicine and healthcare do not need profits to exist. The post office does not need to make money. It exists because we HAVE to have it.
You can go see for yourself. Moderna did not single handedly make the covid vaccine. They do not and should not have the right to deny anyone the right to produce it as cheaply as necessary to provide it to their populations. I can go deeper if you want but if this doesn’t show you that we are saying the same thing I’m going to have doubts about this being in good faith.
It’s not fiction, that’s the reality.
Profit is a purely ideological drive, medicine and healthcare do not need profits to exist.
No shit. Everyone knows that. But it does exist. That’s the world we live in. Income tax doesn’t need to exist, but it does, and things would go wrong if you suddenly stopped paying it.
Moderna did not single handedly make the covid vaccine
Who said they did? Many companies did, and some had government or university help.
I can go deeper if you want
Go as deep as you like. I’ve already explained the situation to you.
I am speaking in good faith. How do you go about avoiding companies simply refusing to create new medications when they know for a fact making new ones would cost billions and they’d never get the money back?
I don’t like that that’s the situation. I want companies to make medications and sell them at a loss, but that’s a fantasy world. I’m being pragmatic. We can improve IP laws without completely killing off future medicine development.
Im saying that the companies who currently own the IP didn’t in fact pay for the development. They paid for the exclusive rights. Universities discovered and developed the new drugs, and then, since universities don’t run large pharmaceutical factories, they sell that developed drug to a company to manufacture it at scale in exchange for the sole rights to be the manufacturer. The system as it stands is not like taxes, because taxes are FOR something. If we stopped giving patents to Pfizer we wouldn’t stop having medicine or even stop having new medical breakthroughs, we would simply no longer have to pay $600 for a Tylenol in the hospital.
I’m glad you added that you aren’t advocating for this, but this system isn’t ingrained into society. It was created, and shaped this way by the companies which own the ip and benefit from nobody being able to manufacture their own cheaper versions. The result of dismantling the medical ip system would not result in zero medicine being manufactured it would result in hundreds of thousands of individual small pharmacies producing their own drugs for nearly no cost. The IP rights exist to protect entrenched capital at the very top of the market. This does not protect anyone but the rights holders and hurts everyone else by further increasing the barriers to access for the majority of the planet.
A billion dollar company has convinced you that if they don’t hold exclusive rights to manufacture lifesaving medications they did not develop then all of medical research would cease. That is hilariously false.
RedFrank24@lemmy.world 5 days ago
If you only funded drugs through public funding, that means the government has a say in what drugs get funded and which don’t, meaning any and all drugs that don’t affect the broadest number of people simply won’t get funded.
Drugs will no longer be for all people, it’ll be strictly the people that vote for the government in charge. So… No hormone treatments, no birth control, no vaccines, no aids research, nothing that doesn’t explicitly align with the government.
Auntievenim@lemmy.world 4 days ago
First of all, governments already do fund all the research.
Even in your hypothetical, thats just one government. It doesn’t stop medical advancement entirely just because one dictatorship stops funding research. It moves elsewhere. When nazi germany declared that nobody would receive funding for anything outside of Aryan research ^tm the scientists just left to a country that wasn’t barbarically stupid.
Also, everything in your final paragraph is stuff that is happening now, in america, under the capitalist organization of the economy which gives all the rights to a private company after publicly funding the research and development of their drugs. It makes no difference, save the fact that now the authoritarian government in power has consolidated billions of dollars for rich capitalists who will gladly accept the orders to no longer produce those medicines while remaining disgustingly wealthy.
Even if you believe in the delusional idea that private companies are funding the development of novel treatments entirely on their own the fact remains that drugs are currently, as we speak, not for all people. I am pointing out the solution to that problem, and the response was to point out how, if we did what I said, then what’s already happening now would be the consequence.
RedFrank24@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Except no, they don’t.
Auntievenim@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Cool great job