Hi, this is my first post here.
I've read Stephan Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property and I found it a very good article, it made me change my opinion on this subject. But I still have a question.
Where the incentives for expensive researches, like research on new drugs made by the pharmaceutical industry, would come from?
The amount of money they'd make selling the drug? Even without IP, they could do their damnedest to keep their methods secret, and at the very least it would take other companies a while to start producing the drug so they'd have a corner on the market for a while.
Also, remember that a lot of the expense from researching and marketing new drugs is based on hoops the government makes you jump through, such as the massive cost of fees the FDA charges to even allow companies to test their new drugs.
nje5019: Even without IP, they could do their damnedest to keep their methods secret, and at the very least it would take other companies a while to start producing the drug so they'd have a corner on the market for a while.
Even without IP, they could do their damnedest to keep their methods secret, and at the very least it would take other companies a while to start producing the drug so they'd have a corner on the market for a while.
Isn't this what Coca-Cola does? Well, at least did before they added the horrible tasting High Fructose Corn Syrup. I don't even drink most sodas anymore, but that is a topic for another thread.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Health insurers may fund research into new cures to lower their payments.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
millhouse: Where the incentives for expensive researches, like research on new drugs made by the pharmaceutical industry, would come from?
The profit from selling those drugs.
And with research being less profitable we would see a greater focus on production, which is a good thing.
Peace
People have an incentive to maximize the profits they make from their intellectual creations. Without IP laws I think we'd still see an effort from the market to protect intellectual property. Even under the current system, we already see this in the form of digital rights management for various types of media, software licensing, etc. In a free market, people would have even more options at their disposal.
For complex inventions, the more time and money that's spent on research, the more complex the problem generally will be. This, in and of itself, can make the product difficult to reverse-engineer. Companies could also add in meaningless components to the product to help delay the creation of a knock-off. I would think in most cases it would give them plenty of time to make a healthy return on investment, and the initial market share they gain could help them continue to profit even when others come to market.