|
On October 14 2012 03:22 zalz wrote:
They made the drug, they own the drug, they can ask for the drug what they like.
You didn't make it, you didn't invent it, you don't get to demand it be given to you for free.
What makes you think you, or anyone, is entitled to be given anything for free? Why is it that these pharma companies shouldn't be allowed to earn from their work like any other industry?
Companies can ask any price they want for their product, and you, the consumer, are not obligated to buy a thing.
Indeed. Helping people cure themselves for a cost of a meal in restaurant and people still complain.
|
On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value.
You're not understanding me.
The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!"
I'm as idealistic as they come...
|
On October 14 2012 05:51 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Reminds me of the good old times that BoxeR talked about when "eSports" was just a bunch of kids on PC bangs, with no money and all that.
Keep in mind that it was before pharmaceutical laws and profiteering / monopoly laws were even developed so there was actually less legal restraint on these companies.
|
On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come...
Complexity and principle are completely separate entities, just because a process has gotten more complicated doesn't mean that degrades the principle.
|
On October 14 2012 05:52 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:51 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Reminds me of the good old times that BoxeR talked about when "eSports" was just a bunch of kids on PC bangs, with no money and all that. Keep in mind that it was before pharmaceutical laws and profiteering / monopoly laws were even developed so there was actually less legal restraint on these companies.
I was being sarcastic. Despite whatever problems with have with pharmaceutical companies, they do actively develop drugs, because they have to. It is much more reliable than waiting for that right person at the right time to make the right discovery by a large margin.
|
Netherlands19138 Posts
They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
|
On October 14 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Complexity and principle are completely separate entities, just because a process has gotten more complicated doesn't mean that degrades the principle.
It makes the principle more difficult to realize.
edit: theory and praxis, my friend. theory and praxis
|
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Antitrust law should also be applied in a scenario where patent holders are the only ones allowed to make a drug and where they intend to eliminate alternatives and generics.
|
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
|
On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come...
Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
|
On October 14 2012 05:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Complexity and principle are completely separate entities, just because a process has gotten more complicated doesn't mean that degrades the principle. It makes the principle more difficult to realize. edit: theory and praxis, my friend. theory and praxis
There are people who directly attack the principle itself, I'm not arguing the execution.
|
On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
|
On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place.
I am...
What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
|
On October 14 2012 05:58 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
Yes, he was angry because there was not yet intellectual property as we know it. He thought there SHOULD be (as a product of emerging bourgeois consciousness), but there was NOT. The first (edit: at least, some of the first important) intellectual property laws were introduced at the Congress of Vienna in the early 19th century (contemporary with Beethoven)
|
On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun.
The Paris Convention is over 100 years old, not THAT new.
|
On October 14 2012 06:01 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. The Paris Convention is over 100 years old, not THAT new.
You and I have very different ideas of "new"
edit: here we see a perfect symptom of the problem with our culture...
|
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
I always simply look at more... Universal countries and they have lower prices because similar to milk products or "needed" products as it was described to me they are regulated at a certain price. This is why some 100 dollar 30pill bottles in the States sell for 30-40 in Canada (and to my knowledge Britain/France as well).
The issue is that America doesn't want to regulate anything so companies have alomst a monopolistic power to price and if you're dying you have quite the incentive to buy the product.
On October 14 2012 06:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:01 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. The Paris Convention is over 100 years old, not THAT new. You and I have very different ideas of "new"
With respect to modern laws on the industrial age 100 years is relatively new seeing as this age only really kicked into gear 100-200 years ago depending on who you ask it ranges through there.
|
Netherlands19138 Posts
On October 14 2012 05:57 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Antitrust law should also be applied in a scenario where patent holders are the only ones allowed to make a drug and where they intend to eliminate alternatives and generics.
What place does antitrust law have within the scenario where they don't patent a compound manufacture proces (like coca cola) and just monopolize it? If it is patented they automatically are susceptible for analyses and competing products as the proces or compound is made public.
Eliminating alternatives is no problem if it is through legal (albeit dubious) means. Generics fall under the patented scenario because if the compound manufacture proces is unknown or the effective substance itself they are unable to be created anyway.
As such if a company decides not to patent and monopolize it it's fine. If they patent it competition gets enabled it's fine as well. If it is patented and noone decides to try and replicate the proces or compound it is probably not worth it either way (many medications are only profitable when monopolized due to insane development costs) and then the problems regarding pricing start. But hey, that's the system  .
|
On October 14 2012 05:58 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!!
Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent.
|
On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there.
And the patent/copyright system is currently rigged to be completely abused. If companies wont stand up against this broken and unfair system then no one will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
