If a company isn't expected to give their cure away, then there is motivation to invest. However, without patents and/or copyrights, I can just wait until they invent it, copy their work exactly, and sell it for much cheaper (since I don't have to recover the cost of the investment). Again, the company wouldn't have any motivation because no one will pay $10B to the company if I have the same cure "on sale" for $1B two weeks later.
--Dan On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:33:28 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Holt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Dan Reese wrote: > > off of providing support? Where's the incentive for a company (as > > opposed to an individual) to invest in researching new ideas? A cure for > > cancer isn't going to come out of someone's garage, nor will a company > > invest billions developing one if they're expected to give it away. Same > > Let's say you're a Pharm company. Millions of cancer patients (and their > insurers, who are looking at millions in life insurance and degenerative > care > costs, per patient) are pleading for a treatment. They've collectively > committed to pay $10B to the first company to provide one. Your > scientists > tell you that for $100M, they have a 10% chance of finding a cure. > > Society has come to its senses and done away with all patents and > copyright. > Do you spend the $100M on a 10% chance of getting 100:1 payback? Because > I > sure would. > > YHBT by Disney and the other information tyrants who think they're > entitled to > thousands of private monopolies. HAND. > > -J > > > ____________________ > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
