Two points against Intellectual property laws

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
The federal government subsidized research behind 45 of the 50 top-selling drugs in the US in 2005. This is common in other industries as well; taxpayers are the ones who foot a large portion of the bill for research, yet drug companies still attain record profit margins selling the drugs back to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, even accepting this, would drug companies bother with the research if there were no profit motive at the end of the development cycle? From a buisness standpoint, I don't see how they could and until there was some other system in place to foster the development, I'd be very wary of eliminating/loosening IP.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The federal government subsidized research behind 45 of the 50 top-selling drugs in the US in 2005. This is common in other industries as well; taxpayers are the ones who foot a large portion of the bill for research, yet drug companies still attain record profit margins selling the drugs back to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, even accepting this, would drug companies bother with the research if there were no profit motive at the end of the development cycle? From a buisness standpoint, I don't see how they could and until there was some other system in place to foster the development, I'd be very wary of eliminating/loosening IP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if we're already paying someone to do it, we could easily hire the scientists who had been working for the drug companies once they all close up shop.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The federal government subsidized research behind 45 of the 50 top-selling drugs in the US in 2005. This is common in other industries as well; taxpayers are the ones who foot a large portion of the bill for research, yet drug companies still attain record profit margins selling the drugs back to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, even accepting this, would drug companies bother with the research if there were no profit motive at the end of the development cycle? From a buisness standpoint, I don't see how they could and until there was some other system in place to foster the development, I'd be very wary of eliminating/loosening IP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if we're already paying someone to do it, we could easily hire the scientists who had been working for the drug companies once they all close up shop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying?

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different.

Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism."

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different.

Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism."

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the basis for this statement? What 'competitive capitalist companies' are doing a better job of providing services than similar, wholly state sponsored companies?

"Innovation is sponsored more through competition..." ... in this case the innovation is sponsored by the government.

If a scientist is paid the same, and receives the same equipment and funding, why will he work less hard for the government, or for a non-profit, than he will for a corporation? He receives the exact same compensation. There is no difference in end motivation, if you are correct that the end motivation is money.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different.

Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism."

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the basis for this statement? What 'competitive capitalist companies' are doing a better job of providing services than similar, wholly state sponsored companies?

"Innovation is sponsored more through competition..." ... in this case the innovation is sponsored by the government.

If a scientist is paid the same, and receives the same equipment and funding, why will he work less hard for the government, or for a non-profit, than he will for a corporation? He receives the exact same compensation. There is no difference in end motivation, if you are correct that the end motivation is money.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is far more to it that just the scientists. Who gets hired? who get how much funding? How do you run trials? what is the supervision/management structure?

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different.

Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the basis for this statement? What 'competitive capitalist companies' are doing a better job of providing services than similar, wholly state sponsored companies?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already given you an example of the state sponsored companies (defence industry single source suppliers). As a counter example of competitve capatilist companies you need look no further than the supply chains for the auto industry. These suppliers are in a fiercely competitive environment and thus achieve far greater efficiency and productivity in achieving thei output.


[ QUOTE ]
"Innovation is sponsored more through competition..." ... in this case the innovation is sponsored by the government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming your sticking with drug research here, the innovation is "subsidized" by government spending but is still primarily motivated by "endprofit". I think you'll agree there is a difference between this and a wholly governemnt owned and operated company.



[ QUOTE ]
If a scientist is paid the same, and receives the same equipment and funding, why will he work less hard for the government, or for a non-profit, than he will for a corporation? He receives the exact same compensation. There is no difference in end motivation, if you are correct that the end motivation is money.

[/ QUOTE ]


Companies are not run by scientists (in general), they are run by buisnessmen.




PS Please add further content to the debate aside from straight DA questions.
PPS I cant seem to get the quote spacing fixed in this post so pls feel free to use your forumerator powers to make it look clearer. ktx.