Do patents help or hinder the development of society?

[dabbler]

yep!!

[Leviathan]

I don't know much about the drug companies so I can't comment on that situation, all i'm trying to say is that generalizing that theory to all technology just doesn't fly. With the drug companies it becomes much more of an ethical issue than anything. I do know that there are certain drug companies that have eaten the cost on certain drugs in order to bring them to third world countries. They do this in the hopes that one day when the country is has developed the people will remember this and buy their products, i'll see if I can pull up a case study... The one company that comes to mind is Merc or something along those lines.

This is why there are laws against monopolies and price fixing. Although oligopolies seem to be able to get past this quite often. I never said you weren't a nice person, good topic by the way.

[wum]

Mabye I'll frame the debate this way:


Patents


Pro's: gives incentive to spend lots of money on development, etc.

Con's: hinders freemarket competition, etc.

[wum]

*thump*

[Leviathan]

Awwww man don't drag me back into this.

[wum]

SAY IT

[Leviathan]

Companies do not spend huge money developing technology just to get a patent, first and foremost they are trying to develop something that generates money, such as a product. Patents are a by product of development for the most part in order to protect their IP.

[Leviathan]

^ Obviously there are some exceptions, their are companies out there who strictly pool IP.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

Companies do not spend huge money developing technology just to get a patent, first and foremost they are trying to develop something that generates money, such as a product. Patents are a by product of development for the most part in order to protect their IP.

we've already argued this point to death, and if you read back I've been agreeing with you this whole time.

Maybe i'll add this to my sig to drive home the point:

developing new technologies = lots of money

cost of acquiring patent = simple user fees

The two are mutually exclusive.

Second, the thread is about if patents are a hinderence to society. One could argue that without patents there would be less incentive to develop since the money could not be recouped if the idea could be "ripped off" by competitors.

By the same token though, products, such as medicines or alternative energies become unnaturally expensive by monopolizing the new technology or method.

[Leviathan]

It could be argued that people wouldn't spend the money to create new technologies if they thought they were just going to get ripped off, which you pretty much stated above.

Again though, a patent does not mean a company will have a monopoly, it just means they came up with a novel idea to solve a problem. The development cost of a product is not the only factor driving the cost of a product to the end user. Ultimately the final cost is going to be determined by several things such as cost of goods, cost of manufacturing and last but not least the demand for such a product. I can see how your argument might hold up in the drug industry but I would like some other examples.

As far as the fuel cell industry goes, the prices are going to be driven by the cost of competing technologies such as the I.C.E that already exists in cars. If the fuel cell stack costs 15 grand for a car, nobody will buy the bloody thing.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

Again though, a patent does not mean a company will have a monopoly, it just means they came up with a novel idea to solve a problem. The development cost of a product is not the only factor driving the cost of a product to the end user. Ultimately the final cost is going to be determined by several things such as cost of goods, cost of manufacturing and last but not least the demand for such a product. I can see how your argument might hold up in the drug industry but I would like some other examples.

It won't monopolize the whole industry of course, but just that particular technology.

I like to see the free market pushed to its limits. While I give credit to the guy who invented the combustion engine, I'd rather give my money to the one who can sell it to me for a cheaper price.

see my point?