Drug Company Fined $100M For Raising Price 85000%

[Endus]

So you're suggesting a system where our government heavily invests into research, even contracting the same companies, wouldn't be feasible? Please explain your rationale on that. If the discoveries are publicly funded, there doesn't need to be this debate about protecting the profits and ensuring companies are motivated to invest in that work.

I'm saying that in a "free market" that doesn't respect intellectual property, the government has little reason to invest in that research, since it cannot benefit from that investment. Nobody can. Research and development is a black hole that profits everyone BUT the one investing in it. Because everyone else who isn't investing in it can just take whatever you develop and use it as their own, without having to invest anything themselves.

Maybe you could get some government investment in necessary products for the general welfare, like healthcare research, but outside of that, it destroys all motive for research and development from any perspective but the personal satisfaction of making something. You can't write a book and sell it, because anyone can just download or print a copy for free and say THEY wrote it. You can't make any profit off a new product, because any money you spent developing it is a net loss, and everyone else is making as fast or faster than you are without having to sink that cost. Etc.

This is just one of many reasons the idea of a pure "free market" without government controls is a fantasy that cannot work in practice.

[Ahovv]

I'm saying that in a "free market" that doesn't respect intellectual property, the government has little reason to invest in that research, since it cannot benefit from that investment. Nobody can. Research and development is a black hole that profits everyone BUT the one investing in it. Because everyone else who isn't investing in it can just take whatever you develop and use it as their own, without having to invest anything themselves.

Maybe you could get some government investment in necessary products for the general welfare, like healthcare research, but outside of that, it destroys all motive for research and development from any perspective but the personal satisfaction of making something. You can't write a book and sell it, because anyone can just download or print a copy for free and say THEY wrote it. You can't make any profit off a new product, because any money you spent developing it is a net loss, and everyone else is making as fast or faster than you are without having to sink that cost. Etc.

This is just one of many reasons the idea of a pure "free market" without government controls is a fantasy that cannot work in practice.

I'm not certain I buy into this idea that because government offers a service, that hurts the "free" aspect of the market. For example, let's say we had a society with no public police, and people either fended for themselves or hired private protection. If suddenly the government agreed to have public policing, it would be foolish to look at that and conclude that there was no longer a "truly free market."

Anyway, us debating what does and doesn't constitute a free market is admittedly pointless. There are very broad, varying definitions. I just didn't like that you picked an example of a coercive monopoly and somehow concluded that the free market was the culprit. Those two are contradictory by *any* definition of free market.

I would like to see more publicly funded drug research, with the result being public knowledge. Any company can then produce the drug and compete in that way. You may call that whatever you like.

[May90]

I'm saying that in a "free market" that doesn't respect intellectual property, the government has little reason to invest in that research, since it cannot benefit from that investment. Nobody can. Research and development is a black hole that profits everyone BUT the one investing in it. Because everyone else who isn't investing in it can just take whatever you develop and use it as their own, without having to invest anything themselves.

Maybe you could get some government investment in necessary products for the general welfare, like healthcare research, but outside of that, it destroys all motive for research and development from any perspective but the personal satisfaction of making something. You can't write a book and sell it, because anyone can just download or print a copy for free and say THEY wrote it. You can't make any profit off a new product, because any money you spent developing it is a net loss, and everyone else is making as fast or faster than you are without having to sink that cost. Etc.

This is just one of many reasons the idea of a pure "free market" without government controls is a fantasy that cannot work in practice.

Honestly, I find the whole concept of "intellectual property" a bit rotten. No one should be able to own intellectual ideas, knowledge and ideas are to be exchanged freely. Trying to police the way people share/use mental knowledge is almost a definition of totalitarianism.

Here is what I would like to see: no one "owns" ideas, but people can own the result of applying those ideas. For example, no one has a monopoly to use Tesla tech when producing cars, but the company producing cars owns the cars it has produced. It is pretty much how it works in science, which is the basis behind the whole technological progress: as long as you credit whoever has done a research, you are free to use the results of that research however you see fit. Imagine if in science the results of a research were only usable by those who have done that research... Imagine the need to ask a permission from every mathematician having participated in proving the Fermat's Last Theorem in order to use its result - or, even worse, the need to pay each of them for that. It is every scientist's nightmare.

Let people own the product, not the technology/ideas behind the product. Otherwise, there is just no point in the whole free market, it might as well be a governmental-controlled entity in which enterpreneurs make deals with the government in order to gain the advantage over the potential competitors. Which is pretty much a definition of corruption.

EDIT: From googling, it seems I'm not alone in this, and a lot of libertarians agree with me. Interesting!

[Endus]

Honestly, I find the whole concept of "intellectual property" a bit rotten. No one should be able to own intellectual ideas, knowledge and ideas are to be exchanged freely. Trying to police the way people share/use mental knowledge is almost a definition of totalitarianism.

Here is what I would like to see: no one "owns" ideas, but people can own the result of applying those ideas. For example, no one has a monopoly to use Tesla tech when producing cars, but the company producing cars owns the cars it has produced. It is pretty much how it works in science, which is the basis behind the whole technological progress: as long as you credit whoever has done a research, you are free to use the results of that research however you see fit. Imagine if in science the results of a research were only usable by those who have done that research... Imagine the need to ask a permission from every mathematician having participated in proving the Fermat's Last Theorem in order to use its result - or, even worse, the need to pay each of them for that. It is every scientist's nightmare.

The reason that works in science and not industry is that, in science, the only "product" is that collective, shared understanding. Science can't work, as a concept, without that free transfer of information; you simply cannot do peer review if you cannot access methodologies to review them.

What you're saying is that nobody should ever benefit from their creations. The only gains you will ever see from creating anything is the satisfaction of knowing you were responsible, even if nobody ever has to give you any credit whatsoever and will often claim it to be their creation. That if you spent two decades working in your garage and perfect a highly efficient electric engine that beats anything on the market, that Ford can just steal that prototype and start building your engines, claiming that it's a Ford invention and giving you no credit whatsoever. You're completely unable to ever generate any profit from working on that engine, so why would you even bother?

It's a great idea if you're one of the companies with the deep pockets and huge resources to capitalize on whatever ideas you steal, but it pretty much guarantees that nobody can ever compete with those big corporations. You don't have the resources, and any ideas you come up with that are worth anything, they'll just take and use for themselves without ever paying you for them. The capacity to innovate becomes completely useless, all that matters is how much money you have to invest in production.

I get that libertarians like this, but they haven't thought it through. It doesn't protect innovators, it directly attacks them, and supports only those with the deepest pockets and lowest ethics.

[May90]

The reason that works in science and not industry is that, in science, the only "product" is that collective, shared understanding. Science can't work, as a concept, without that free transfer of information; you simply cannot do peer review if you cannot access methodologies to review them.

What you're saying is that nobody should ever benefit from their creations. The only gains you will ever see from creating anything is the satisfaction of knowing you were responsible, even if nobody ever has to give you any credit whatsoever and will often claim it to be their creation. That if you spent two decades working in your garage and perfect a highly efficient electric engine that beats anything on the market, that Ford can just steal that prototype and start building your engines, claiming that it's a Ford invention and giving you no credit whatsoever. You're completely unable to ever generate any profit from working on that engine, so why would you even bother?

It's a great idea if you're one of the companies with the deep pockets and huge resources to capitalize on whatever ideas you steal, but it pretty much guarantees that nobody can ever compete with those big corporations. You don't have the resources, and any ideas you come up with that are worth anything, they'll just take and use for themselves without ever paying you for them. The capacity to innovate becomes completely useless, all that matters is how much money you have to invest in production.

I get that libertarians like this, but they haven't thought it through. It doesn't protect innovators, it directly attacks them, and supports only those with the deepest pockets and lowest ethics.

You say now that science cannot work like this. And yet, imagine if it had worked like this for generations, and everybody was used to it and it was a universally accepted system - would you be saying the same? I would argue that in a society functioning without the concept of an intellectual property, the concept would look just as barbaric to the people as harsh intellectual property in science look to us.

Not having intellectual property doesn't mean that you don't benefit from your creations. If you have devised something and want to use it for your own financial gain, you don't have to reveal it to the world, you can work with a private contractor and build a product before anyone else devises a similar product. You get the advantage of a headstart, of being able to sell something that no one else has even started producing.

But you should not have the right to own an idea. An idea is not a physical entity you should be able to own. You can keep it a secret, but you can't ban others from using that idea for their own gain. If you've built a spaceship, and then someone bought it, disassembled, figured out the technology and started producing its refined version - too bad, they happened to be more in touch with the market than you. Want to maintain your superiority - keep improving your product, always staying ahead of the competition. If you can't, then, well, free market isn't for those who can't keep up with time.

[Endus]

You say now that science cannot work like this. And yet, imagine if it had worked like this for generations, and everybody was used to it and it was a universally accepted system - would you be saying the same?

Any system where people's results and methods were kept proprietary wouldn't be science. Peer review and replicability are the core of the entire concept. That's why it's a comparison that doesn't work.

Not having intellectual property doesn't mean that you don't benefit from your creations. If you have devised something and want to use it for your own financial gain, you don't have to reveal it to the world, you can work with a private contractor and build a product before anyone else devises a similar product. You get the advantage of a headstart, of being able to sell something that no one else has even started producing.

Do you own the entire factory that's producing it? If you don't, the factory owner can just sell it as his own idea, after you give the plans to him to build. If you're making them by hand, you might get a few sales until some megacorp with big factories starts mass-producing. You'll get a lead measured in days, at best, and won't have the production capacity to be able to compete.

If you're positing a world where everyone's equal and there's no wealth inequality, then you'd have an argument, but that's also a rigidly controlled system that cannot emerge from a free market to begin with.

But you should not have the right to own an idea. An idea is not a physical entity you should be able to own. You can keep it a secret, but you can't ban others from using that idea for their own gain. If you've built a spaceship, and then someone bought it, disassembled, figured out the technology and started producing its refined version - too bad, they happened to be more in touch with the market than you. Want to maintain your superiority - keep improving your product, always staying ahead of the competition. If you can't, then, well, free market isn't for those who can't keep up with time.

What you're saying is that artists and writers shouldn't ever own anything they produce, and that nobody has any real motive to innovate in any kind of manufactured product. You CAN'T "keep improving your product", since unless you're one of the few big corporations that own the main factories, you cannot possibly compete. The ONLY thing that matters in your "free market" is how much money one has to invest in undercutting the competition. If you don't have that money, anything you create can be "stolen" and mass-produced by those who have the money to invest in such. And those big companies have little reason to invest in development themselves, because the product of that R&D will be instantly acquired and used by their competitors, for free; sinking money into R&D is a loss, every time. This is WHY we have patent and copyright law; because the supposed "free market" you're talking about is a kleptocracy of the wealthy.

[primalmatter]

It is a odd moral bind this puts people into... personally when it comes to things that effect the public health I believe government should have the right to seize it with compensation such as water,food,and medicane but I can see how that can clash with people who are ridged capitalist.

[May90]

Any system where people's results and methods were kept proprietary wouldn't be science. Peer review and replicability are the core of the entire concept. That's why it's a comparison that doesn't work.

They became the core of the entire concept as a result of scientific development and progress in the last few centuries. Things could have gone differently with a different scientific culture and history, and we might end up with the same system in science as we have on the market - would you support that system then?

Do you own the entire factory that's producing it? If you don't, the factory owner can just sell it as his own idea, after you give the plans to him to build. If you're making them by hand, you might get a few sales until some megacorp with big factories starts mass-producing. You'll get a lead measured in days, at best, and won't have the production capacity to be able to compete.

Well, what you are talking about is an outright fraud. That's why there are contracts in place to avoid such cases. If you want to benefit from your idea, sign a contract with the factory according to which you will only explain your ideas to them if they agree to share 5% of the sale profit with you. All these things are solvable, it is not like there is going to be a complete anarchy on the market in which people can scam each other however much they want.

What you're saying is that artists and writers shouldn't ever own anything they produce, and that nobody has any real motive to innovate in any kind of manufactured product. You CAN'T "keep improving your product", since unless you're one of the few big corporations that own the main factories, you cannot possibly compete. The ONLY thing that matters in your "free market" is how much money one has to invest in undercutting the competition. If you don't have that money, anything you create can be "stolen" and mass-produced by those who have the money to invest in such. And those big companies have little reason to invest in development themselves, because the product of that R&D will be instantly acquired and used by their competitors, for free; sinking money into R&D is a loss, every time. This is WHY we have patent and copyright law; because the supposed "free market" you're talking about is a kleptocracy of the wealthy.

An artist or a writer owns the "hard" original of the results of their work. As such, until they've published it somewhere for everyone to see, it is solely up to them what to do with the product; they can find a private publisher and sign a contract with them that will significantly restrict them in what they can do with it. Also, like I said, I don't mind the idea of the producers of the product having to credit the original developer, what I mind is the original developer monopolizing the right to use it.

If someone takes a good book, revamps it and publishes it as their own work, based on the work of the original author, then I don't think the original author should have the right to financially benefit from the revamped version of the book. In fact, I think, this is what art should be all about: artists working together on something, refining it, improving it, getting new ideas out of it - as opposed to isolated artists working on their own projects and not sharing them with anyone freely.

[Endus]

They became the core of the entire concept as a result of scientific development and progress in the last few centuries.

No, they're core concepts of what we call "science". The scientific method is not the only way to approach improved understanding; the system you're talking about would be much like that of the medieval guild system. That still produced advancement, but it was not science. Science absolutely requires peer review and replicability; any system that does not allow for those is not "science". Kind of like how any system that didn't allow ownership of goods couldn't ever be called "capitalist".

Well, what you are talking about is an outright fraud. That's why there are contracts in place to avoid such cases. If you want to benefit from your idea, sign a contract with the factory according to which you will only explain your ideas to them if they agree to share 5% of the sale profit with you. All these things are solvable, it is not like there is going to be a complete anarchy on the market in which people can scam each other however much they want.

There's no fraud. You're explicitly arguing against the intellectual property rights that currently prevent this from happening.

[Ilir]

And some still wonder why pharma companies are hated...

[Darkeon]

As long as it was increased without proper, justifiable reasoning, then I say Serves them right!

[May90]

No, they're core concepts of what we call "science". The scientific method is not the only way to approach improved understanding; the system you're talking about would be much like that of the medieval guild system. That still produced advancement, but it was not science. Science absolutely requires peer review and replicability; any system that does not allow for those is not "science". Kind of like how any system that didn't allow ownership of goods couldn't ever be called "capitalist".

I argue that a truly free market requires a similar system, and what we have now is a medieval guild system. And, again, there is a difference between ownership of goods (hard, physical, molecular entities), and ownership of ideas (abstract concept).

There's no fraud. You're explicitly arguing against the intellectual property rights that currently prevent this from happening.

I think a simple contract system works much better than the intellectual property rights. There is a difference between signing a contract with a private organization before you drop your ideas on them, and getting the contract benefits automatically and with every person on Earth.

[BannedForViews]

Example #4203B as to why free-market laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work out in practice. Because a market free of government influence is not automatically a "free market"; health care is a clear example where those who need it are not in a balanced negotiating position, since they can't just refuse to participate in the market without serious consequence.

Except you and everyone else here doesnt understand what a free market is. This company manipulated government regulatory checks to create its monopoly. If you want to see a free market look no further than wheat, or coffee, and even then youll see governments instituting price floors and ceilings with subsidies and the like, as is the case with corn for ethanol.

the management of this company is despicable, but if you think this woupd have been possibly without the fda, youre wrong. Just look at the case of the jacked up epipen prices and how competitors were kt from the market by a government institution.

[Shadowferal]

Except you and everyone else here doesnt understand what a free market is. This company manipulated government regulatory checks to create its monopoly. If you want to see a free market look no further than wheat, or coffee, and even then youll see governments instituting price floors and ceilings with subsidies and the like, as is the case with corn for ethanol.

the management of this company is despicable, but if you think this woupd have been possibly without the fda, youre wrong. Just look at the case of the jacked up epipen prices and how competitors were kt from the market by a government institution.

Part of free-market ideology has always been about manipulation for the sake of its bottom line.

[BannedForViews]

Part of free-market ideology has always been about manipulation for the sake of its bottom line.

You clearly dont know what the word ideology means.

[Endus]

I argue that a truly free market requires a similar system, and what we have now is a medieval guild system. And, again, there is a difference between ownership of goods (hard, physical, molecular entities), and ownership of ideas (abstract concept).

I think a simple contract system works much better than the intellectual property rights. There is a difference between signing a contract with a private organization before you drop your ideas on them, and getting the contract benefits automatically and with every person on Earth.

And, again, the problem with that is that these contracts are unenforceable, other than with the one legal entity you signed it with. Their competitors are not obliged to abide by any such terms, nor are any corporate entities of that same owner other than the one you contracted with. If you see an idea to Ford, and a shareholder gets that idea and takes it to Honda because they have shares in both, that's totally legal and Honda owes you nothing. And if you want to engage in legal shenanigans, you can get into divisions within the same corporate umbrella.

That's the issue with contracts; they ONLY apply to those who sign it. Since the IP isn't otherwise protected, everyone who isn't signatory to that contract gets to use the same ideas for free, and without restriction. So signing that contract is disadvantageous to any company that wants your idea; they're investing in development that their competitors will benefit from for free.

Except you and everyone else here doesnt understand what a free market is. This company manipulated government regulatory checks to create its monopoly. If you want to see a free market look no further than wheat, or coffee, and even then youll see governments instituting price floors and ceilings with subsidies and the like, as is the case with corn for ethanol.

the management of this company is despicable, but if you think this woupd have been possibly without the fda, youre wrong. Just look at the case of the jacked up epipen prices and how competitors were kt from the market by a government institution.

What you're really saying isn't that a free market is "better", but that a market controlled for the consumer's best interests is "better" than one controlled for the producer's best interests.

[Nefarious Tea]

They should have taken every single cent those scammers have. Companies like that deserve nothing but banktrupcy.

This is my vote. Corporations that do unethical things should be destroyed as an example to others. Governments should fear their people and corporations should fear their governments; the problem with our world is that governments fear the corporations instead, and corporations fear nothing but each other.

[May90]

And, again, the problem with that is that these contracts are unenforceable, other than with the one legal entity you signed it with. Their competitors are not obliged to abide by any such terms, nor are any corporate entities of that same owner other than the one you contracted with. If you see an idea to Ford, and a shareholder gets that idea and takes it to Honda because they have shares in both, that's totally legal and Honda owes you nothing. And if you want to engage in legal shenanigans, you can get into divisions within the same corporate umbrella.

That's the issue with contracts; they ONLY apply to those who sign it. Since the IP isn't otherwise protected, everyone who isn't signatory to that contract gets to use the same ideas for free, and without restriction. So signing that contract is disadvantageous to any company that wants your idea; they're investing in development that their competitors will benefit from for free.

Here is an example of a contract that circumvents the issues you mentioned:

"Under no circumstances does the company reveal the technology to anyone else before the 2 years period expires. During that 2 years period, the inventor gets 5% off all the product sales".

If the contract was breached, the inventor can sue the company and get a large compensation back. In the end, the inventor wins regardless of what happens, the company wins by getting a headstart on the technology use, and the consumers win by other competitors starting to use the modern unrestricted tech and improving the product in a harsh competition.

What you're really saying isn't that a free market is "better", but that a market controlled for the consumer's best interests is "better" than one controlled for the producer's best interests.

No, what I'm saying is that a market not prone to the monopoly/oligopoly problem arising from certain restricting laws is better, than one prone to it. And yes, a market without the concept of intellectual property is less favorable towards a given enterpreneur - but it is more favorable towards both the market as a whole, and the end consumer.

[BannedForViews]

What you're really saying isn't that a free market is "better", but that a market controlled for the consumer's best interests is "better" than one controlled for the producer's best interests.

The benefit of the consumer is the quintessential purpose of capitalism. This is an indisputable fact that has been the primary driver of capitalism since it's intellectual conception. Nowhere that I am aware of has any reputable and respected proponent of capitalism ever said that the purpose is to perpetuate the interests of the producer. The only way the producer comes into the equation is that capitalism believes that when left free, more "producers" can benefit whilst simultaneously increasing the benefit to the consumer. The profit motivator encourages potential producers to come up with ways to increase efficiency, and competition reduces margins so that the consumer is the main winner. Look at all the conveniences we have today and it's impossible to deny that it works, even when no capitalist society has ever actually existed. People still find ways to either play within the arbitrary rules, or skirt them, with the goal being to give the consumer more for less whilst making themselves rich doing so.

Honestly, this shouldn't be contentious ANYWHERE and I really shouldn't have to explain it to people. I also do not think you're a stupid person even though I completely disagree with most of your positions, so I find your response even more curious.

Yes, I am 100% saying that a free market is always better, without quotations, and that the problem is clearly one of marketing more than anything.

It's funny, if you look at a lot of polls about how much people think any given person should have to pay in taxes, or how they feel about things like competitive drug prices or the like, and the conclusion you should most often come to is that people instinctively support the tenants of a free market, but if you rephrase questions to be politically or socioeconomically polarizing people revert to falling lock step in whatever rote responses their party affiliation spews out at them.

Capitalism is not and never has been about supporting the interest of any producer. It only supports massive wealth generation if it was come to freely by the individual choices of the consumers. Yes, producers can do all sorts of nefarious things to attempt to snuff out competition, but the only time those things are every really injurious to the consumer is when they are a product of government. There is no such thing as price gouging in a free and open market.

[Kuja]

And then a plot twist, it's only a placebo drug!