Perplexed in Peoria  wrote or quoted:
> "Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
news:ccd7e3$8ta$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...

> > Regarding some recent comments about how patents were
> > encouraging medicine to develop and test artificial,
> > patentable compounds while ignoring the natural and
> > safer - but unpatentable - equivalents, I recently wrote:
> >
> > Drugs, foods and medicine are all showing signs of marching
> > off into patent land - while paying little or no attention
> > to whether that's where the useful compounds are.
> >
> > IMO, this medical mess isn't a failure of commerce - it's a
> > problem with patent law - which works /against/ free-commerce
> > by granting government-enforced monopolies.
> > [snip remainder]
> 
> While I share your general disgust with our current intellectual
> property situation, there are three quibbles that I would make
> here.
> 
> Reducing the incentive to develop patentable compounds does
> not, by itself, create an incentive to develop the
> non-patentable compounds.  To address this problem, I think
> the only solution is to have more of the government-funded
> research going toward that kind of development.

IMO, government sponsored research should be an important
factor.

The problem with such an approach is that healthy workers
can end up footing the development bill - not necessarily
something they might regard as entirely fair.

Still - such an approach has *got* to beat leaving drug
development to market forces.  Market forces are likely
to concentrate on giving people better erections and
more sensitive gentials.  Not necessarily desirable
charactistics in a productive work force.

Nature typically sterilizes her work force - and she
knows what she is doing.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/6/04 9:59:01 PM