Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Cicada

(4,533 posts)
1. You added the words "to the extent"
Sun Mar 5, 2017, 06:42 PM
Mar 2017

Patent holders have exclusive rights because giving them exclusive rights encourages the progress of science. There is nothing in there about rights holders having to act in a pro social way. During the term of the rights they can choose not to do anything with the invention, if they want. The limited term assures that society will benefit even if the right holder is a creep. The Wright Brothers blocked useful progress by others so we were way behind other nations when World War One started. They did not act in ways promoting the common good. But after the term ended we could benefit (actually when the war department gave them massive amounts of money to let others make planes too).

We could easily limit price gouging in drugs in other ways though. Such as by adding a surplus profits tax on super profitable drugs. We often do that on oil when the price goes way way up. I think we should take a third of the price or more on those drugs as a surplus tax.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is This A Defense Against...»Reply #1