I see you arguing that things went just the way they should have all over this thread.
This point in particular is completely wrong. The two doctors who made the drug do not even hold the patent and basically gave it away for free to the company trying to distribute it.
So yes, if not for the patent this drug would definitely still exist, and probably be available to people who actually freaking need it.
> I see you arguing that things went just the way they should have all over this thread.
Actually, I never said that anywhere. I think what happened is basically a no-op. Without a profit motive, the drug would never have been developed, and therefore not available to anyone, and we'd be in the same boat we're in anyway.
What I do think is one of two things should happen: Either (1) we decide that the drug is worth it, in which case health systems should pay the owner of this drug fairly for their investment. Or (2) it's not worth it, in which case we're no worse off than we would have been without this company, other than the fact that they wasted a bunch of their money.
(As an aside, note that I said we should pay the owner, fairly for their invention, not the original developer who voluntarily gave up the rights. This is an important distinction as the ability to voluntarily transfer property rights is pretty central to the whole concept. Imagine if after you bought a car, anyone could take it, because you're not the original manufacturer. It's not hard to see the path from this society to one where nobody bothers making cars.)
> The two doctors who made the drug do not even hold the patent and basically gave it away for free to the company trying to distribute it.
Those two doctors did the least expensive part of the whole operation. The more expensive part was funded privately. If you want to fix this you can either have the government fund that expensive part, or you can have it done privately and pay the owners what they want.
> if not for the patent this drug would definitely still exist, and probably be available to people who actually freaking need it
Sure, maybe the doctors still would have done the research, but there would be no money either for the clinical trials, and so manufacturing and distributing the drug would be illegal.
This point in particular is completely wrong. The two doctors who made the drug do not even hold the patent and basically gave it away for free to the company trying to distribute it.
So yes, if not for the patent this drug would definitely still exist, and probably be available to people who actually freaking need it.