[pitaj]

There's a lot of evidence that copyright doesn't actually help most creators, and significantly holds back progress.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3198147

The same arguments generally apply to patents. There are monetization models like live shows, subscriptions, Patreon, advertising, sponsorships, etc that work very well for creators.

Especially in the internet age, we shouldn't act like copyright and patents do anything to stop people. Creators would likely do better if the publishers weren't in the middle controlling access to their works.

[fipple]

I can say with confidence that >90% of new small-molecule pharmaceuticals would not be created in a patent-free world. Now, not every new small molecule drug is important, in fact probably the majority aren’t. But those that are, save a lot of lives.

[cwkoss]

Counterpoint - it would drastically reduce overprescription of ineffective medications that have strong marketing

[fipple]

Not sure why it would. Companies would still market the drugs they had.

[mrob]

The market for pharmaceuticals is already very far from being a free market. It's a heavily regulated industry with extremely high compliance costs. In this specific case, further market distortions in the form of patent monopolies might be necessary to make the market work. Most industries do not have this level of regulation.

[quadrangle]

The economic harm to society that comes from patents is more than enough to fund public research that could employ the same smart people to discover the same medicines.

[eropple]

Not saying you're wrong, but the implication that such public research would happen assumes facts not in evidence.

[quadrangle]

Eh, we're in fantasy-land already if we're talking elimination of patent law.