Comment on Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk would like to ‘delete all IP law’ | TechCrunch
Auntievenim@lemmy.world 4 days agoI 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.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 4 days ago
It’s not fiction, that’s the reality.
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.
Who said they did? Many companies did, and some had government or university help.
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.
Auntievenim@lemmy.world 3 days ago
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.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 days ago
You’re talking about a very different situation to the one I am talking about. I never advocated for companies buying up exclusivity deals, particularly not when the development was done by publicly-owned institutions. I’m not sure where you got that from, because it sure as shit wasn’t from anything I wrote.