Quote:
Originally posted by hermit22
As for the patented process of making an AIDS drug - I'd have to say most of the international community
disagrees with you (see Sections 2 and 3). They (and, theoretically, the US, since I do believe we're a sponsor of that treaty) recognise that the human condition should be preserved.
|
First of all, what "most of the international community" thinks is irrelevant. And the language in the treaty you link to says "members <I>may exclude</I> from patentability" those various products. Nowhere does it say that "patents were not valid when the product would save people's lives", as you've repeatedly tried to claim here.
But that's not even the point I'm trying to make. Regardless of whether disallowing patents on life-saving drugs should be done, you seem to completely dismiss the effect it would have on whether companies would continue to invest in developing drugs. How do you know they could "still make a ton of money"? How do you know the full impact that such a law would have -- on that company's investors, on their cashflow, on their budget priorities? You can't double the cost a company incurs in marketing a product and just hope they'll keep on doing it.
As I've said already, if such a law were passed, companies wouldn't simply roll over and take it. They'd find new ways to make money.