Martin Shkreli's deadline for a Daraprim price reduction has passed, and it's still the exact same p
65 replies, posted
If someone wants to kill him I'm cool with that
somebody destroy this man
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;48880558]You mean Montana Max?[/QUOTE]
Saying his actual name doesn't have the same weight behind it as "douchey rich kid".
[QUOTE=Saber15;48859696]Protective laws. If Company A produces a new drug they can patent it, Company B cannot produce it for X years (20 IIRC) when the patent expires. Company A can charge whatever they want for the drug because they have a government-mandated monopoly on the drug.
Shkreli's company didn't actually make a drug, but they bought the [I]rights[/I] to the drug and are the only manufacturer of it. The patent is, AFAIK, technically expired but they come up with a new ever-so-slightly formula every couple decades to keep the exclusivity rights.
If the protective laws didn't exist or were at least more lax, any company could come in and make any drug. Of course, there would be much less drive for innovation and R&D spending if another company could swoop in and copy your drug with no cost, so the laws need [I]reform[/I] rather than being removed entirely.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but patents and intellectual property is from the same argument, the same ideology, as liberalism and austrian economics. This system is literally a protection of property, which is the sole purpose for the state in classical liberalism and the primary excuse austrianism.
one way or the other people
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48897758']Yeah but patents and intellectual property is from the same argument, the same ideology, as liberalism and austrian economics. This system is literally a protection of property, which is the sole purpose for the state in classical liberalism and the primary excuse austrianism.
one way or the other people[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, do you think patents are good or bad?
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48899633]I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, do you think patents are good or bad?[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying that it's hypocritical to be pro-market, pro-private property in one breath and then demonize patent protections and IP protections in the next. It's the same thing. It's bunk to say that "It's not a failure of the market/capitalism, it's the government preventing competition" when in fact that's not true- the government protects patents and IP on request from the property holders because that's the function of the state in the market- to protect property claims. You can't be reasonably pro-market and anti-patent protection without being pro-market and anti-private property. The way the patents are set up is an expression of state protection of property. It is a failure of capitalism and the market, even though pro-capitalists are quick to point out that the state grants "a monopoly" on intellectual property and patents.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.