Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BelowTheCrowd who wrote (183407)	2/3/2006 2:20:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Our IP protection system (which we eagerly export) provides a level of protection for drug manufacturers that is incomparable to anything that's ever been afforded that industry anywhere in the world. Maybe we started it but you can't say that the rest of the developed word doesn't also have patents for drugs. Mostly, it doesn't pay for R&D. It pays for more lawywers, more lobbyists and more junkets for doctors. Money is fungible, all of their income pays for all of their spending. If the income was lower than lawyers, lobbyists and junkets might go down but so would research, esp. considering the fact that with the patent system research for a successful new drug has a high rate of return. In any case I accepted the idea that patents are meddleing in the market. I just pointed out that other countries do this meddleing as well. If you think the terms of patents should be shortened or that patents should change in other ways, go ahead an lay out your plan and argue for it. I might agree. I already think the patent system is sometimes abused. If you think patents should be eliminated I probably wouldn't agree but you might convince me. Either way I don't see how a problem with patents should result in a support for price controls. Tim