101–106 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment is the single most compelling argument why STEM must include liberal arts/humanities studies
You will find most STEM people do 'liberal arts/humanities studies' because it reduces our workload and gets us high distinctions. I got trouble because they saw me 'hacking' the system a bit working them in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the covid vaccine was not developed for profit, it was developed because the alternative was the literal end of the world as we know it. they'd been sitting on the tech for thirty years because it was not profitable, in fact https://www.salon.com/2021/01/24/the-hero-biochemist-who-pio... and now that it's finished it's immediately applicable to all kinds of diseases that currently and historically have generated mass…
they'd been sitting on the tech for thirty years because it was not profitable So what you're saying is... If there had been a profit incentive, they wouldn't have sat on it? That seems like a strong argument for the profit motive: if you make it unprofitable, it doesn't get acted on. That being said, I actually don't think your claim of "they'd been sitting on the tech for thirty years because it was not profitable"…
>So what you're saying is... If there had been a profit incentive, they wouldn't have sat on it? That seems like a strong argument for the profit motive: if you make it unprofitable, it doesn't get acted on.
It's only an argument if you believe not acting on it was a correct decision. I think the multiplicity of mRNA applications that are immediately following now that we’re past the hurdle of the first one, and the huge amount of damage these vaccines and therapies will prevent or mitigate to literally millions of human lives, including preventing countless deaths (malaria alone kills about half a million every year), indicate that this is an extremely beneficial technology that should have been aggressively pursued before a global pandemic forced the issue.
>Instead it says that a young researcher got frequent pushback in the 90s on a possibly-promising, but not fully-developed idea that turned out to be correct, because it was viewed as too novel or as unworkable. And in fact, in the 90s, it actually was unworkable. She didn't figure out how to make it work even theoretically until 2005.
>That doesn't mean the pushback was right — although many breakthroughs have gotten pushback before being proven correct.
Yes, this is bad. The stonewalling of promising treatments that are not fully developed is entirely contrary to the point of medical research. Novelty and difficulty are the kind of problems that resolve into possibility or impossibility only with the application of research and trials. The year 2005 is still early enough to have massively changed many lives, and it may have been sooner if they were not impeded.
>So, I guess what I'm saying is, I think the system mostly worked out? It could have been smoother but it does seem to have succeeded.
It was allowed to succeed only once it became apparent there was no other choice. Capitalism does not get to take credit for being dragged across the finish line by the biggest mass mortality event in decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they'd been sitting on the tech for thirty years because it was not profitable So what you're saying is... If there had been a profit incentive, they wouldn't have sat on it? That seems like a strong argument for the profit motive: if you make it unprofitable, it doesn't get acted on. That being said, I actually don't think your claim of "they'd been sitting on the tech for thirty years because it was not profitable"…
Sure, i simplified a bit. They kicked her legs out from under her for thirty years. The researcher claims being denied funding as early as 1989. >So what you're saying is... If there had been a profit incentive, they wouldn't have sat on it? That seems like a strong argument for the profit motive: if you make it unprofitable, it doesn't get acted on. It's only an argument if you believe not acting on it was a correct…
medicine have been produced for ages without IP law Er... I think there's a fairly sizable difference between modern medicine, in which we can develop an effective cure for a pandemic within a year of the pandemic starting, and historical medicine in which the Black Death ravaged countries for years and was never cured, only adapted to after countless lives were lost. I don't think the modern medical industry would w…
> develop an effective cure for a pandemic within a year of the pandemic starting [...] You can maybe first-principles your way to an idea of a way to produce large amounts of novel, working medicine quickly without IP law, but that's at best theorycrafting and doesn't have a whole lot of evidence backing it up AFAIK Are you aware that an effective Oxford COVID vaccine was developed by a university without the pharma…
Oxford, their partners AstraZeneca, as well as Johnson & Johnson (the latter two being pharma companies!) have all committed to distributing at cost — but not at a loss. They want to get paid back. The way they're getting paid back is because they can enforce IP law. If anyone could copy them without paying, as the author is proposing, they would not be able to sustain this kind of research.
At cost is very different than not enforcing IP law. IP law is required for "at cost." Otherwise it's distributed at a loss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many IPs likely wouldn't even exist if the 10 year monopoly didn't exist. Yeah they patented some parts of DNA and there was a huge debate over it but that patent is almost expired now so the whole debate eventually becomes irrelevant. It's worth it.
As long as they expire in reasonable time, unlike a certain mouse...
The problem you bring up is not a problem with the concept of IP. It is the problem of the exploitation of loop holes by lawyers and entities with enough money to pay these lawyers. It’s in the same class of problems as tax loopholes. You can’t ban the concept of tax simply because there are loopholes.
Not saying loopholes aren’t an issue. I’m just saying Mickey Mouse is an argument against loopholes, he is not an argument against the intent and purpose of Ip law in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as they expire in reasonable time, unlike a certain mouse...
Mickey Mouse is obviously a loophole. The purpose of the law was not made to do this and the time limits are not unreasonable. The problem you bring up is not a problem with the concept of IP. It is the problem of the exploitation of loop holes by lawyers and entities with enough money to pay these lawyers. It’s in the same class of problems as tax loopholes. You can’t ban the concept of tax simply because there are…