Quote:
|
Yes but from a moral standpoint that's exclusively for the owner of the capital to decide *edit* -Without government intervention that attempts to change incentives (tax credits, regulation, tax hikes, patents only in some sectors etc.) for investment.
|
That depends on where your morals come from. If you are an utilitarist, there a goal to create public policy in such a way that there are fewer negative sum games and more positive sum games.
Quote:
|
It is simply too subjective, it is downright economic planning and history dictates this fails *edit*
|
The history of the Soviet Union tells us that central planning has it's problems.
Patents are however about shifting incentives around to allow decentral decision making that creates innovation.
Quote:
|
But i look at it this way, apparantly the market is not ready for that third generation sequencing stuff, either technology is not advanced enough or who knows, i mean why is it so damn expensive, is there really an actual demand?
|
If nobody would research in that area, nobody would fill a patent and nobody would produce products.
If you however have one company that successfully creates a good product, then
Quote:
|
But i look at it this way, apparantly the market is not ready for that third generation sequencing stuff, either technology is not advanced enough or who knows, i mean why is it so damn expensive, is there really an actual demand?
|
Nobody can say exactly how much actual demand there would be if you could buy your complete genome information for 200$.
Seeking drugs to cure cancer is a similar business. Everybody in pharma knows that 99% of drug candidates will fail.
Those ideas that succeed have to pay for all the attempts that failed.