"The Pirate's Dilemma" - free e-book

[HarryT]

You have to face the fact that, unless you propose to "nationalize" drugs companies, and let the taxpayer pay for R&D, then new drugs are not going to exist unless the manufacturer can make money from them. Developing a new drug takes many years, and 95% of them don't reach the market. Unless the manufacturer can recoup the cost of those 19 failed drugs through sales of the one successful one, then that enormously expensive R&D isn't going to happen!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Adam B.

I haven't read the book (yet), but based on the Ars Review, it seems that the book is making the point that pirates doing what's best for them, may in fact bring on changes that are good for everyone.

But as I haven't read the book, I could be off base.

There was a link in a thread here to a video of a talk by the author of the book and and his point was exactly that. Piracy like what Hollywood did lead to something that might be good for everybody.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You have to face the fact that, unless you propose to "nationalize" drugs companies, and let the taxpayer pay for R&D, then new drugs are not going to exist unless the manufacturer can make money from them. Developing a new drug takes many years, and 95% of them don't reach the market. Unless the manufacturer can recoup the cost of those 19 failed drugs through sales of the one successful one, then that enormously expensive R&D isn't going to happen!

My understanding is that alot of R&D for the more "popular" maladies are covered by grants.... also, alot of universities do research and such... then the drug companies come in an buy manufacture and distrubtion rights. I am talking about stuff like cancer, HIV, diabetes, etc.

BOb

[HarryT]

I agree that a lot of the research is done in universities, but it's still funded by companies like AstroZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. My basic argument does, I believe, still hold. No profit from sales of the rare successful drug inevitably leads to fewer (or, if we take it to its logical conclusion, no) new drugs. The companies need to make billions from the drugs which do work to pay for all the ones which don't.

[pieter]

The third world will not be a significant player in the free market game for a looooong time. As such they will not be able to play according to succesfully play the free market game for a looooong time, which also means that they won't be able to buy those western medicines for a loooooong time. Really according to the whole free market theory, why would somebody ever sell to the third world. There really is hardly any possibility to make any money from Africa.
I'm frankly appalled at the whole "let them die, if they can't pay" sentiment on display in this thread. I can deal with the whole anti file sharing sentiment that bows down to the billions dollar digital content industry instead of the common good, but seriously this I can't stomach.

People are dying by the thousands in Africa. And since there is no money to be made from Africa anyway, why should they not get the medicine for a fair price? Capitalism and the free market isn't infallible. Intellectual property isn't some dogma that needs to be upheld even when it means the death of thousands of people that can't play along in the game of capitalism.
This is why I don't believe in intellectual property. It's not just a stupid concept that the rich invented not so long ago, it is also a concept that kills people.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

There was a link in a thread here to a video of a talk by the author of the book and and his point was exactly that. Piracy like what Hollywood did lead to something that might be good for everybody.

While I suppose you could argue it was good for the Hollywood producers and the audience, the "star machine" of Hollywood routinely treated the bulk of its actors and actresses like cattle, ground them out and discarded them when done. Writers and technicians were treated even worse. So, again, the moguls got rich, the people got their bread and circuses, and the creators got the shaft.

It wasn't until years later, when the unions won fair treatment for its members, that the system could be said to be "good for everybody," IMO. Pirates didn't accomplish that. Organization did.

Argue what you want about the Pirates... but their ultimate lack of appreciation for the creator and their efforts, and their right to be compensated for those efforts, is just plain sad.

[Greg Anos]

Pieter, a loooong time is 20 years (max). Remember patent is limited to 20 years (much of which is burned up the the drug testing process). Once the 20 years are up, the third world can produce all the drug it wants, without paying big pharma.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

While I suppose you could argue it was good for the Hollywood producers and the audience, the "star machine" of Hollywood routinely treated the bulk of its actors and actresses like cattle, ground them out and discarded them when done. Writers and technicians were treated even worse. So, again, the moguls got rich, the people got their bread and circuses, and the creators got the shaft.

Steve, even in the 1920' and 30's, when the talent was being shafted the hardest, they were still making 2-10 times what equivalent labor was making elsewhere in other industries (and i'm talking about the "little people" working behind the scenes.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pieter

There really is hardly any possibility to make any money from Africa.

(I had to go back and look, to see how this sub-thread got started.) The problems in Africa are partly Africa's own, and partly (mostly) the fault of the Old and New Worlds... unfortunately, while Africa is struggling to help itself, the Old and New Worlds haven't been doing their part to help.

This isn't a fault of Intellectual Property, or the Free Market system. This is the fault of politicians and the public refusing to help in anything but token amounts.

Originally Posted by pieter

This is why I don't believe in intellectual property. It's not just a stupid concept that the rich invented not so long ago, it is also a concept that kills people.

IP won't help Africa if the rest of the world won't extend a hand, to help them pull themselves up. Governments could easily solve the problem by buying the drugs outright, and sending them over. So could the public (you). IP doesn't prevent that. Publicly-sanctioned disinterest does.

So don't blame IP for Africa's troubles... blame the indifference of the rest of the world.

[pieter]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Pieter, a loooong time is 20 years (max). Remember patent is limited to 20 years (much of which is burned up the the drug testing process). Once the 20 years are up, the third world can produce all the drug it wants, without paying big pharma.

Tell the millions of people in Africa that have Aids that a looooong time will be max 20 years. For them it might as well be 200 years, because they will be just as dead then.

[pieter]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

(I had to go back and look, to see how this sub-thread got started.) The problems in Africa are partly Africa's own, and partly (mostly) the fault of the Old and New Worlds... unfortunately, while Africa is struggling to help itself, the Old and New Worlds haven't been doing their part to help.

This isn't a fault of Intellectual Property, or the Free Market system. This is the fault of politicians and the public refusing to help in anything but token amounts.



IP won't help Africa if the rest of the world won't extend a hand, to help them pull themselves up. Governments could easily solve the problem by buying the drugs outright, and sending them over. So could the public (you). IP doesn't prevent that. Publicly-sanctioned disinterest does.

So don't blame IP for Africa's troubles... blame the indifference of the rest of the world.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is. A strong case could be made that the "free market" and capitalist history is at least partly responsible for it though. A strong case could also be made that Intellectual Property plays a part of keeping the first world far ahead of the third world. (I won't even start about intellectual property on genetically altered seeds which keep farmers in Africa dependent on western suppliers).

And, yes, I blame the indifference. Very much so. But Intellectual Property effectively is the tool that gets wielded by this indifference. Basically you're saying Intellectual Property can be worked around if only we (me and my government) pay. How about this company's indifference? Hiding behind some mantra "sorry, it's intellectual property, that's just how it works, kid.". THAT is indifference. Let's give THIS indifference less tools to work with, by not taking this new invention of intellectual property serious.

It's not that long ago the US didn't take it serious btw. But I guess in those days it was not in it's best own interests to take it serious.

I'll repeat. People are dying right now, because intellectual property getting wielded with indifference.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Steve, even in the 1920' and 30's, when the talent was being shafted the hardest, they were still making 2-10 times what equivalent labor was making elsewhere in other industries (and i'm talking about the "little people" working behind the scenes.)

I'm frankly skeptical (If that were true, why would you unionize in the first place?), but I won't belabor the point. I will say that William Fox's move to Hollywood to escape Edison had nothing to do with altruistic motives of "making things better for everybody"... it was all about making more money for Fox.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pieter

Tell the millions of people in Africa that have Aids that a looooong time will be max 20 years. For them it might as well be 200 years, because they will be just as dead then.

<Sigh>. The answer to AIDS in Africa is cultural, not drugs. As long as the current sexual mores in Africa remain unchanged, the epidemic will never die out. Look at what's been done to control AIDS in Thailand. Currently, drugs are just pallitives, they don't <cure> the disease. Eventually, you get drug resistant strains, and the drugs become worthless. When that happens, the patient starts passing around the resistant strain. (The same problem occurs with malaria, and bacterial antibiotics.) Finally, if the rich patent world stops making new drugs, because there is no profit in it, then you'll be back to square one in 15 to 20 years, with no effective drugs left.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I'm frankly skeptical (If that were true, why would you unionize in the first place?), but I won't belabor the point. I will say that William Fox's move to Hollywood to escape Edison had nothing to do with altruistic motives of "making things better for everybody"... it was all about making more money for Fox.

May I suggest the book "The Whole Equation" by David Thompson? It's a good read, as well.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pieter

It doesn't matter who's fault it is. A strong case could be made that the "free market" and capitalist history is at least partly responsible for it though. A strong case could also be made that Intellectual Property plays a part of keeping the first world far ahead of the third world. (I won't even start about intellectual property on genetically altered seeds which keep farmers in Africa dependent on western suppliers).

Businesses are in business to make money, plain and simple. They are not, by their nature or design, charities. You don't blame a business for not being charitable enough, any more than you'd blame a dog for not being able to fly.

Charities get started by people who see a need in one place, a product or service in another that can be applied to that need, and making the effort to connect them through its own channels, including private and public support. In the absence of governments or other organizations, charities step in to satisfy that need. Charities and other organizations are already doing exactly this. Any ineffectiveness on their part is largely due to a lack of private and public support, not on any effort by businesses to stifle their efforts.

So don't blame businesses for not giving their products away to Africa. Blame you, and me, and everyone else, for not buying those drugs ourselves and sending them, or convincing our governments and charities to buy and send them. It does matter whose fault it is. Blame us for ignoring Africa... not IP.