Intellectual Property should be abolished - change my mind! - Lemmy.world
lemmy.world
I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone. As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

Hey mateys!

I made a post at /c/libertarianism about the abolition of IP. Maybe some of you will find it interesting.

Please answer in the other community so that all the knowledge is in one place and easier to discover.

  • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
    62·
    1 year ago

    These changes alone (without other major reforms) would be particularly catastrophic in sectors that require large investment over a long period of time. For example, pharmaceuticals typically cost billions and take 10-15 years to develop.

    • Uriel-238@lemmy.fmhy.mlEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Billions typically paid for by government subsidy, id est taxpayers. I’m not sure what the justification is for private IP rights when the capital is socialized.

      • juliebean@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        i so seldom see anyone actually write out ‘id est’ instead of ‘i.e,’ that part of my brain insisted for a solid second that it had to be a typo lol

    • 133arc585
      53·
      1 year ago

      Pharmaceuticals is about the worst example you could pick to make a point. It’s notorious for socializing the cost and privatizing the profit (not to mention the ethics of price gouging life saving medication treatments).

      Here’s what Johnson&Johnson is doing right now with a TB drug whose development was paid largely with public funding:

      The pill, called bedaquiline, was first approved in 2012 as the first new TB drug in over 40 years and revolutionized treatment for drug-resistant infections. But its relatively high cost limited access in many low- and middle-income countries hit hardest by an epidemic that still kills around 1.5 million people every year, most of them among the world’s poorest. The company initially charged $900 per course in low-income countries, according to a 2016 report, but gradually lowered it to $340 three years ago.

      The secondary patent particularly irked some advocates because the drug’s development was largely underwritten by public funds, according to a 2020 analysis. That study found public sector funds contributed $455 million to $747 million to getting bedaquiline to market, compared to $90 million to $240 million from J&J.

      • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        The pharmaceutical companies would definitely not cut back on their profits, so at “best” they would either get public money to make it several times faster, or they would cut back on quality and safety (*lobbies have entered the chat); and in either case the final price would be higher.
        There is plenty of room to get worse, even in the current favorable conditions they prioritize known cost-effective palliative treatments over research into expensive solutions that may lead to nothing.

        If the entire health sector were public and concerned itself with saving lives instead of making money, it would be a different story, but that is where we get into major reforms.