Comments on Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism: A Free For All on Drug Patents: Or, Ron Bailey's ...

colorless,You're right, a lot of drugs are develop...

2006-03-23T10:29:00.000-08:00

colorless,

You're right, a lot of drugs are developed entirely in government facilities, at taxpayer expense. But even if they weren't, the sheer effrontery of that quote deserves some kind of award: "Without the drug industry to pick up the money off the sidewalk, all that money the government throws around would be wasted!" Wow, that's some "public-private partnership"!

Ivan,

Thanks for the link. The drug industry argument is that their sunk costs and turnaround time are unique. But a lot of that is increased considerably by FDA requirements (which works in the drug industry favor, by increasing capitalization and entry barriers and thus promoting a cartel of firms already in the club).

Do you know the work of Boldrine and Levine? http:...

2006-03-23T06:53:00.000-08:00

Do you know the work of Boldrine and Levine? http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm The best statement against IPR's on the web...and free of copyrights.
And of course there are many thriving and innovation industries working without IPR's. The fashion industry’s principal creative element – its apparel designs – is outside the domain of IP law. Design copying is ubiquitous. Yet the industry develops a tremendous variety of clothing and accessory designs at a rapid pace.

"Without private industry to mine the insights of ...

2006-03-20T12:09:00.000-08:00

"Without private industry to mine the insights of university researchers, taxpayers would have paid for a lot of top-notch scientific papers, but few if any medicines."

the funny thing is, this isn't even true anymore--the NIH has successfully brought several drugs to market recently. Not that I believe the government should be responsibly for producing drugs through the NIH (which is mostly outsourced/subcontracted), just that it's not necessarily any less effective than the Merck's and Phizer's patent feifdoms, and at least the result is public domain so there can be a real free market in production.

It might be.But I made a point of putting the adje...

2006-03-18T11:14:00.000-08:00

It might be.

But I made a point of putting the adjective "economic" in front of "fascism," and juxtaposing it with "corporatism," in order to make it clear I was limiting the scope of the word.

Hi Kevin,I know that a lot of left-libertarian act...

2006-03-18T10:58:00.000-08:00

Hi Kevin,

I know that a lot of left-libertarian activists use the term "fascism" (or "economic fascism") to describe the situation where the government controls the market so that privately-owned corporations can reap a profit, but I think it is TERRIBLE word usage.

First, it is inaccurate, as fascism is understood by almost everyone to be much more than just a particular economic system. It is also a political system, and an ideology...and the thing that people really hate about it is the political system and ideology. I like the term "corporatism" much better. I think it is more understandable to most English speakers. If you want to argue that fascist states used a "corporatist" economic model, and that the political system and ideology was developed specifically to support that economic model, then go ahead, but I think the words should be kept separate.

Second, when you accuse the ruling class of being "fascist" just because of their economic model, you come off as a fanatic. It's like comparing all of your opponents to Hitler. It seems like a cheap shot and like you've lost all sense of proportion.

I understand what you're saying, but I think it is terrible for your image, and the image of the mutualist and left-libertarian movements.

Very interesting.It sounds something like the orig...

2006-03-17T10:53:00.000-08:00

Very interesting.

It sounds something like the origin of the U.S. chemical industry (at least one operating on a large scale): the U.S. Justice Department seized the German chemical patents during WWI and distributed them among U.S. firms.

The U.S. Congress also passed legislation in recent years removing all the strings previously attached to patents on drugs developed with government R&D money. Before then, there were mandatory licensing provisions. Now, the drug companies are given complete discretionary control over patent rights, gratis. Some of the most lucrative drugs under patent were developed entirely at taxpayer expense.

Talking of penicillin, it might be worth giving so...

2006-03-17T01:27:00.000-08:00

Talking of penicillin, it might be worth giving some of the history of the patents surrounding that. As is widely known, it was a British development brought to fruition during the war years when production and methods were difficult to improve within the UK. The entire state of the art was transferred gratis to the USA under a gentleman's agreement, so as not to hinder the war effort.

US drugs companies promptly ran with it and broke the agreement, devising a mass production fermentation system which they patented. Not only was this a breach of the original undertaking, it didn't even have the justification that without a patent the mass production wouldn't have been discovered - after all, the British were well ahead in every respect apart from having other things on their plates.

The result, of course, was the shortage of penicillin immediately after the war and a claw back of US aid to Europe. It's the bacjkground to the Orson Welles film "The Third Man".