I disagree wholeheartedly. Nothing drives innovation and hard work like personal gain does. It is inherent in man.

Because you claimed to be against patent law. I feel intellectual property is worthy of protection. In fact, a healthy society demands it.

“patent laws hinders as a matter of fact innovation depriving markets from all needed stimulus for inventive effort.”

It could be said that patent law promotes alternative approaches to otherwise established procedures and invigorates a seemingly standstill idea or innovation to a new level, and possibly arriving at a new idea, or approach in the process.
Before the 7 years or whatever protection is up, people have already implemented new theories designed to completely make obsolete, the present idea being protected. And are already onto the next ‘invention’ worthy of the next level of protection. Bottom line, the 7 years gets shorter, and shorter.

I believe this was played out to a degree in socialist countries of old. The common man was hardly helped in his day-to-day lives by all that inventiveness going on in East Germany and USSR for instance. However, the countries that have intellectual property rights have become world leaders of per capita income, allowing their citizens to live better in the process. That is a 60 year or so patent law market study right there.

What do you propose as an alternative to the system in place now?

I am a staunch believer in capitalism, and private property rights, and believe they are necessary for a healthy and productive society. However, in the realm of life-saving medicines, such as the Hep C drugs we here so badly need, there needs to be more of a balance. Something clearly has to be done, so that no one dies or has their lives otherwise diminished while not being able to afford the present day prices of these drugs. While the drug company is entitled to a fair profit for their investment and property rights, there needs to be something else done to ensure the availability to all, regardless of ability to pay. I’m not sure what that is, but it is surely not what Gilead is currently trying to do.

As an interesting aside, a hybrid system of government may be the best. The roads and their associated real property and the infrastructure necessary for them to operate cannot be by a private enterprise. That would constitute a monopoly and wouldn’t work long term. And maybe the supply of electricity could be better operated by a non profit like the government. (except that the government ruins everything they touch). Modern medicine is currently undergoing these considerations. So far, no system has been satisfactory.

Actually, ALL roads in the USA are built by private companies with contracts. The government doesn’t have any roadbuilding equipment. But I say that with regard to the real property the roads are on. With a multitude of property owners, there would be a host of problems traveling reliably.
Also, the military should remain a government entity. But yes, I am for as little government as possible myself.

You know it’s interesting. I just saw my GP who complained about the lack of innovation in pharmaceuticals because Big Pharma is busy buying up patents for existing drugs so they can mark them up and maximize returns through acquisitions, rather than from innovation.

I don’t have a lot of time to write tonight, but I want to say this. There is a huge difference between something like a copyright on an artistic work, or a patent for a microchip, and a patent on a life-saving medication without which hundreds of millions of people will eventually die.

The answer I think has to be a provision for Eminent Domain, which places public health and welfare first and foremost ahead of narrower interests.

When a groundbreaking drug like Sofosbuvir is developed, the originator should be well compensated ( e.g. development costs X a fixed multiple), and perhaps additional royalties provided based upon bulk distribution (worldwide).

inherent in a pharmaceutical patent is not only the potential to heal and save lives, but also the potential for abuse and extortion by the patent owners. This is the opposite of anything like a free market. Pharmaceutical price abuse has literally broken our healthcare system (in the US).

To allow an originator or patent holder to abuse a patent for a lifesaving medication without limitation is simply as unacceptable as it is unsustainable.

Like anything else that is abused to extent that pharmaceutical patents are, there must necessarily be limits which preserve and protect the public good.

Of course. Why didn’t you just say so?