property right vs. copyright

[Wibee]

@Spideynw

@Wibee

Though I am more concerned with medicine, where it takes billions in investment.

I only glanced at this article, but maybe you can check into it to see if it is valid. http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/the-myth-of-high-drug-research/

It makes the claim that it really does not cost that much for drug research.

I don’t think I have enough knowledge to claim it’s accuracy. But it does make a good argument. The author defends it quite vigorously in the comments. Even seems to have a good grasp of economics.

[leftie]

@Wibee

Easy, they have to charge more because they can only sell the idea once and not have a continuous revenue stream to draw upon protect by Ip rights.

IP rights guarantee they can sell the product forever, therefore they can afford to lower the price due to competing ideas because no one would be able to reproduce their idea.

What do you mean by So?

Edit:

Read some of the thread, z. It’s a very interesting idea. I can see how both IP and anti-IP rights would function.

Wibee,

You forget the costs involved in IP, which essentially a form of state intervention. Rent seeking behaviour, having to reinvent the wheel are two ideas that come to mind.

Whilst I agree that no IP laws would make some commercial practises non-viable, I don’t think this is such a problem. It’d allow businesses that rely on selling services and/or products to do so unhindered and to progress with new ideas etc unhindered. Whilst business that relies on artificial scarcity would go the wall or change rapidly to survive.