Hello Brutha,
First i would like to point out you have quoted and replied both DaveM and myself and i dont know why
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha  Why do you think that there are hard limits? Where should those come from? |
Im simply looking at the human body and thinking what keeps us healthy is what in turn makes us healthy. Living the longest life possible would require good hygiene more than good drugs.
And there is such a thing called reality, which has pretty hard limits. We wont know for sure, until the pill or elixir has been discovered and proven to work if eternal, or human-life of 300 years for example is possible with it. Thats why im saying your welcome to pursue it. If you do, and claim your almost there, you will gain investor attention. If you at the same time will claim a monopoly on the drug/elexir, then you will get even more attention. I think -and thought this was what you were hinting at- if patents were to only exist in the pharma industry, ordinary citizens would be robbed of potential capital for their buisness ventures. Undoubtedly some would be willing to throw cash after a potential monopoly on the life extending, health restoring,cancer healing drug -some with enough to money spend will throw at least a little that way, more a gamble than related to anything rational.
You see there is a great incentive to lie if your in this industry. Even though you will never reach a real product, you may lie all you want, because things have come so far, so many end up with cancer that there is huge potential in this market.
BUT reality is... MAYBE, this is just a thought of mine... that in thinking medicine is the cure, not changing lifestyle, is what brings so much cancer about. It is so paradoxial. Maybe if there were no patents, less money would be invested in the medicine sector, it would be less hyped and the forces that drives society would turn toward ordinary lifestyle changes and healthy living instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha If you rule would be universal it would also work for my example. That's what being universal is about.
Regardless what makes a rule universal? God?
Without one as reference point, rules always depend on context and on the specific person and what's good for one person in one context might not be good for another person in a different context. |
Not my rule, but the rule as reality dictates it. What i had in mind when i said "What is good for one, must be good for all" was the fact that people of the state are allowed to use violence against me, but i am not allowed to use violence against them. Not even in self-defence.
Its a moral contradiction. What one is allowed to, everyone should be allowed to. So if i can be forced at gunpoint to surrender my property, then morally i should be able to do the same to anyone else. But there is no logical consistency in such a rule. If everyone was allowed to steal then private property wouldnt really exist. No-one would want to steal, for what they take would be allowed for anyone else to steal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha Here the question becomes whether the context of inventions makes state invention in the form from patents a positive sum game or a negative sum game. |
Its definately negative
Im just going to change the following statement to make it resemble my take on things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha Either you can make the case that patents lead to more investment of capital and creative energy into a fraudulent field or you can make a case that the opposite is the case.
If you however blame patents for increasing pharma research you shouldn't argue at the same time that patents lead to less productive research because of monopoly concerns. |
I am questioning the true positive effects of medicine in regard to the human body and good health/hygiene for optimal living conditions.
This means that most of not all research going into the pharma industry is potentially unproductive. Thats not to say there is not a profit to be made, but wether medicine really, truly helps the human body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha Companies usually sublicense each other patents to avoid legal trouble. |
And so so many patents are obtained excusively to avoid or cause legal trouble. And obtaining patents take time and costs money.