this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
657 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
69298 readers
3855 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Companies will not — ever — dump hundreds of millions/billions into developing a drug only to have it be sold at cost or even worse, completely losing out on it when a competitor sells a copy of it at a price you can't match.
And even if they did suddenly turn to altruism like that, they'd very quickly go bankrupt.
Why would anybody spend billions making new drugs if they knew with 100% certainty that they'd never make the money back?
We may not like it, but that's the system that we have. Some form of IP law should exist to encourage these companies to continue putting out medicines that better our lives, it's just that our current ones go way too far.
We already fund the research of new drugs almost entirely through publicly funded projects which then HAND OVER the patent rights to whichever company has the most former board members in the executive branch at the time.
I watched it happen in real time during covid while working for the DPH. Those companies produce NOTHING. They are the literal obstacle to creating new medicines and making them widely available.
I'm against the context of the main post but putting on a cape for medical patents is wild. The entirety of healthcare in america is inexcusable. Let's stay focused on the AI tech oligarchs robbing us of our futures and attempting to frame it as a concern with intellectual property.
If it's state funded then that's obviously a different matter.
But usually it's a company making drugs, and they'd go bust if they spent billions developing a drug and got zero money back. Then there would be far fewer drugs made.
Be practical. Letting people die for ideological reasons is not a good thing.
I wrote a long winded reply but honestly I'll just say that your second paragraph is entirely based on fiction and your final paragraph is precisely what for profit medicine is designed to do. Profit is a purely ideological drive, medicine and healthcare do not need profits to exist. The post office does not need to make money. It exists because we HAVE to have it.
You can go see for yourself. Moderna did not single handedly make the covid vaccine. They do not and should not have the right to deny anyone the right to produce it as cheaply as necessary to provide it to their populations. I can go deeper if you want but if this doesn't show you that we are saying the same thing I'm going to have doubts about this being in good faith.
It's not fiction, that's the reality.
No shit. Everyone knows that. But it does exist. That's the world we live in. Income tax doesn't need to exist, but it does, and things would go wrong if you suddenly stopped paying it.
Who said they did? Many companies did, and some had government or university help.
Go as deep as you like. I've already explained the situation, though.
I am speaking in good faith. How do you go about avoiding companies simply refusing to create new medications when they know for a fact making new ones would cost billions and they'd never get the money back?
I don't like that that's the situation. I want companies to make medications and sell them at a loss, but that's a fantasy world. I'm being pragmatic. We can improve IP laws without completely killing off future medicine development.
"Just, like, don't make profit, broooo" would be nice, but that's not how the world works.
Im saying that the companies who currently own the IP didn't in fact pay for the development. They paid for the exclusive rights. Universities discovered and developed the new drugs, and then, since universities don't run large pharmaceutical factories, they sell that developed drug to a company to manufacture it at scale in exchange for the sole rights to be the manufacturer. The system as it stands is not like taxes, because taxes are FOR something. If we stopped giving patents to Pfizer we wouldn't stop having medicine or even stop having new medical breakthroughs, we would simply no longer have to pay $600 for a Tylenol in the hospital.
I'm glad you added that you aren't advocating for this, but this system isn't ingrained into society. It was created, and shaped this way by the companies which own the ip and benefit from nobody being able to manufacture their own cheaper versions. The result of dismantling the medical ip system would not result in zero medicine being manufactured it would result in hundreds of thousands of individual small pharmacies producing their own drugs for nearly no cost. The IP rights exist to protect entrenched capital at the very top of the market. This does not protect anyone but the rights holders and hurts everyone else by further increasing the barriers to access for the majority of the planet.
A billion dollar company has convinced you that if they don't hold exclusive rights to manufacture lifesaving medications they did not develop then all of medical research would cease. That is hilariously false.
You're talking about a very different situation to the one I am talking about. I never advocated for companies buying up exclusivity deals, particularly not when the development was done by publicly-owned institutions. I'm not sure where you got that from, because it sure as shit wasn't from anything I wrote.