>We may give them a year to profit from their discovery*
Which is it?
>I rather go to the drugstore and find 10 cures for cancer than none because somebody got a patent and has a monopoly for that drug.
I'd agree the terms are too long, Pharma's spend more on advertising than R&D.
However, this is short sighted. In part the funding comes from investment, the investment won't be there if once the drug goes on sale the Pharma can't prevent their rivals (who didn't have the up front costs) from simply capitalising on the invention. The investors unfortunately aren't investing to find a cure (generally) they're investing to make money. It's capitalism.
If you're going to keep capitalism I think you need to keep some form of patent (but I'd limit the term more and probably add a profit multiplier limitation too if it's possible to work out the details effectively).
No patents. Just a recognition of being first which entitles you to one year advantage over your competitors. And you have to have a product in the market in that year, so no patent trolls sitting on their asses collecting fees.
"funding comes from investment"
Well, yes and no, I bet you most of scientists and researchers work their butts off for recognition first, then money. When Flemming discovered penicillin he wasn't thinking on patenting that discovery, and I bet he wasn't being funded either, he just did it for the love of science and the greater benefit of humanity. The same can be said of Tesla. For the joy.
The same we code day and night for the love of our profession.
>When Flemming discovered penicillin he wasn't thinking on patenting that discovery
That's not how drug development works though is it, we can't rely on happy accidents for all scientific/medical advances.
>I bet he wasn't being funded either, he just did it for the love of science and the greater benefit of humanity
This works if you have a source of sustenance. It doesn't work against a backdrop of capitalism.
Tesla became wealthy through patents enabling him to fund his later experimentation. Whether he did it to further scientific understanding or not he benefited greatly both in wealth and ability to further his research because of the IP laws at the time.
Fleming discovered penicillin by accident, and then only used it in it's weak form to create vaccines that didn't actually work, though he still sold them and made good money from them. He actively discouraged his students from following it up or improving it and it was only later when government funding was made available to create an effective antibiotic that his research was resurrected and perfected.
vs
>We may give them a year to profit from their discovery*
Which is it?
>I rather go to the drugstore and find 10 cures for cancer than none because somebody got a patent and has a monopoly for that drug.
I'd agree the terms are too long, Pharma's spend more on advertising than R&D.
However, this is short sighted. In part the funding comes from investment, the investment won't be there if once the drug goes on sale the Pharma can't prevent their rivals (who didn't have the up front costs) from simply capitalising on the invention. The investors unfortunately aren't investing to find a cure (generally) they're investing to make money. It's capitalism.
If you're going to keep capitalism I think you need to keep some form of patent (but I'd limit the term more and probably add a profit multiplier limitation too if it's possible to work out the details effectively).