[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You might as well attribute it to the decline in Caribbean pirates. The vast majority of innovations in history would have occured in the last X years with or without patents, because innovations build upon each other over time. The same statement was true before the advent of patents, quite obviously. The vast majority of innovations will always have occured in the last X years. Duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point is that patent doesn't seem to have hindered the exponential growth in technology. Its not a question of "oh, the last 100 years we have had more inventions than the 100-200 years ago." Its that there has been a crazy explosion of technology. obv that has to do with certain breakthroughs, but its hard to argue that we have been living in an age of stifled technological innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly say this? Where is your control?

[ QUOTE ]
also, i think you are blatantly ignoring the dark periods in history. history hasnt been just an ever increasing slope of technological innovations, and the relatively minimal economic resources that went into a lot of those inventions make them difficult to compare to todays inventions.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the absence of a modern world in the absence of patent protections makes it impossible to attribute the current technological state of the world to patents. See?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guess what. If the FDA isn't around to make you jump through hundred million dollar hoops for 15 years to get a drug to market, it doesn't cost that much or take that long. In fact it would almost certainly be a tiny fraction of the cost. You are ignoring other business models that could work perfectly well in the absence of patent protection, like privately funded charitable research, either because you personally cannot think of any (argumentum ad ignorantium), or because you simply don't want to concede that you might be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, enlighten me plz. my problem with the arguments here is that they are just one liners, like "no, im not concerned about that, been inventing for years, patent obv wrong." I am not a fan of monopolies, and if other legal models worked I'd be happy to hear it. But I think the incentive argument justifies it in the case of patent. sooooo saying my argument is flawed while not really providing an explanation of an alternative really gets us nowhere, even if you can cite a latin phrase.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explanations of the alternative are all throughout the thread, along with arguments that make the point that even if you concede that the absolute rate of innovation would be lower in the absence of patents that still does not justify them.

[ QUOTE ]
and while the fda might not be perfect, im sure its there for a good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. The credulity you grant to the state amazes me.

"While the National Helium Reserve might not be perfect, I'm sure it's there for a good reason."
"While the Gestapo might not be perfect, I'm sure it's there for a good reason."

The FDA is there for a good reason; to employ a lot of bureaucrats and increase the power of politicians.

[ QUOTE ]
there have been some terrible consequences of drug defects. so im happy with them jumping through hoops

[/ QUOTE ]

The hoops kill far, far, far more people than the defects. The market provides powerful incentives for companies to produce safe drugs and strong measures to recompense those that are damaged by negligence. Ridiculous hoop jumping is totally unnecessary. It's not just counterproductive, it is literally lethal to tens of thousands of people every year.