1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Your money or your life.

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by -Ken, Nov 17, 2002.

  1. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    This article in today's Boston Globe does a great job of detailing
    how the Pharmaceutical Industry is servicing us.

    If you think medical costs are high due to malpractice insurance,
    take a look at what the legitimate "drug pushers" are doing legally.

    I would ask someone here to explain the difference between these
    companies legally "holding us up" and the guy in the back alley with
    a gun. We either give them our money or we'll pay for it healthwise.
    Add to that the fact, once we become addicted to their drugs, there
    is no kicking the habit. Classic drug pusher marketing technique!

    Thank God they are our companies. If they weren't I think we would
    have to declare war on them.
     
  2. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Ya, and we don't need campaign reform. Another example of the anti citizen laws passed by a congress bought and owned by big business.
     
  3. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    Patent law and copy rights are one of my bigest problem with our move to advance in knowledge. It promotes resting on your laurels and does no one any good other than greed. This is my most liberal view that could be associated to me. Knowledge should be open and consistently improved. Other than trading names and laws to recoup R&D proceeds with a modest royalty for discovery, I see no need to deny people of knowledge. It's wrong. That's why I like the Open Source Project, Free as in source code, not as in beer.

    Good post by the way.
     
  4. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Shiny, agreed.

    Fritz,

    In some ways I agree with a lot of what you said. I would
    like to point out recognition for one's work is important
    and in a capitalist society there is a need to reward hard
    work and discovery.

    If we look at the investment it took to bring some of our
    biggest discoveries to light, as you suggested, there is a
    need to recoup R&D expenses and provide a return to the
    investors.
     
  5. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    Human knowledge belongs to the world. That is the ideology of the people who work on the GNU project. I was actually reading an article that said that Linux will probably be very successful in China because it works better with communism (technically most of these "communist" countries are socialist. In a true communist country everything is owned by everyone.) not to mention that many foreign governments are paranoid about secret backdoors in Windows that the CIA can use to spy on them. However in America we have a capitalist society, and in such a society there needs to be a period of time where a person could get rewarded for their work. However I don't see the need for it to be so long of a period of time. The less time they spend reaping the benefits of their latest creation the more time they'll spend making their next which will push us farther, faster and demonstrate to the world why capitalism works for us.
     
  6. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    If you make the best Pizza in town, you don't have to patent the recipe. If someone figures out how you made it and makes it better, they too should not not be sued for creativity. Knowledge is granted by seaking it. Once you find it, it's an obligation to the world to know it is now open to improvement.
     
  7. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    Agreed, but in our capitalist society, the capitalists probably will not have any motivation to make anything or any improvements to our knowledge if they get no reward from it. That's the sad truth.
     
  8. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    Some motivation would be lost, but then the pace of knowledge may be more manageable. Far too many people do things for the love of it, not just lining their pockets.:)
     
  9. jamming

    jamming Banned

    So why would a company ever commit to producing a product based upon what was known at the time, because tomorrow someone would put them out of business with a brand new product. Software is a specialized product that requires very little advance committment of resources and not a good example.

    A better example is Memory Chip Manufacturers, when they went to the thinner wafer design standard. What if a revolutionary way came up the next day to manufacture new and improved memory chips that where 1000% better that no one would buy the previous ones. One Company was still in the process of upgrading and could easily incorporate the new process, that was found by a researcher that was working for another company who had completed the earlier upgrade. Under Open Source, the Company that was the late adopter would be in the drivers seat. So the urge would be not to adopt the new technology at all amongst the companies, until there was a stupendous reason to upgrade. This would repress economic investment into new physical technologies, that require real dollars invested in them. Open Source creates risk that no one wants to shoulder when they have to invest time and money, open source works on things that only require little investment.

    What Company has made a business on Open Source to the a tenth of Microsoft? None. So essentially you are for adopting a business model that is less effective than another on a logarithmic scale. So you might want to consider using 20 year old technology versus today because that would be the difference for physical products. So your computers of today would be like Commodore 64's with no hard disks, if there had not been a level of patent protection for physical process. That would of retarded the whole dot.com age into being in the future now.
     
  10. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    Microsoft makes an inferior product. Much of what they did was taken from Open Source or stolen out right and compile the concept to their OS. Ware do you think TCP/IP came from.

    I am not for a company some protection for recouping investment and in most cases once they do delver what it is they did, they will be years ahead of any other competetor. Why should we the consumer be hostage to inferior products because the author wants to keep milking the cow.

    What have you done today I say.

    BTW "What Company has made a business on Open Source to the a tenth of Microsoft?"

    That they are big does not make it right.

    The peope who give of their time freely are worth more than 100 Microsofts.

    Mony is a bad bench mark.
     
  11. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    TCP/IP is on open standard, ratified by IETF. Microsoft served on the board.

    MS TCP/IP was until recently NetBIOS encapsulated in TCP.

    Novell TCP was IPX in a TCP wrapper.

    What's the problem? Everyone tries to make it more proprietary. Compaq sells computers that adhere to the PCI standard, but they add stuff to the components to make them proprietary. There's not a lot you can just add to a Compaq server without going through Compaq first.

    On the other hand, you can add and remove components from Dell servers without a problem. That's why I'll always use Dell, but almost every other Tom, Dick, and Hairy (?) prefer Compaq. I guess they want to pay more.

    SM
     
  12. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    By the way, as an addendum, getting into a pissing match about which product is better is a lot like watching a cat lick himself. It's no fun, and it's unfair that I can't do the same thing, but bitching about it gets me no where.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I need to run off to yoga class.

    SM
     
  13. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    If you are committed to providing a product that is superior and dedicated to it's being their is not much to stop you. If your sole reasion is to generate capitol, then the product will suffer.

    Yes Compaq makes crap workstations, but nice servers. I too prefer Dell for the buck. I have a 2450 2x866 2gig mem 5x9.1 SCSI Seagate 10000 rpm drives and the thing hums Open Source.

    IBM made MS and lends to it's success, but unlike IBM, MS wants to own the standard instead of setting them.

    IBM is now a big Open Source supporter as are many large companies that are seeing the light. NYSE is converting soon, that was big news.
     
  14. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    I cant defend what the pharmaceutical companies are doing with Nexium and Clarinex; if these really arent that much of an improvement over the previous drugs, I would hope that physicians would prescribe the generic brand of their prior incarnations. However, I imagine very few will not cave into the newer is better philosophy. Maybe this is a case where the insurance companies can sway doctor prescribing habits by only paying for the generic previous versions.

    But I do believe patents and copyrights are necessary and provide a valuable function to developers. It can take significant resources (money, time, testing) to develop a product, and a company needs time to recover that cost through higher prices. If not for patent protection, a competitor can copy the design exactly and only has to bear the manufacturing and distribution cost, but none of the development cost. These cost are usually huge compared to that required to tweak a pizza recipe (which is usually kept proprietary, BTW), and the scientist involved arent usually able to donate their time as with an open-source project.

    As an example, I helped a company develop and patent a drum safety product; it took over 2 years of development and testing and $100,000 before it was ready for market. Since its a niche product, its only now broken even after 3 years on the market. Some of the purchasers have said that they would have copied the design, saving about $200 on a $300 priced product, if it were not patented, and so without patent protection, the product most likely would not have broken even, let alone had a profit since their really wasn't a way to make it better (after all, I was involved in development of it; how could it get better! ;) ). Given the cost of R&D associated with drugs and the amount of testing, manufacturing QA/QC, etc., I can see the need for patent protection and higher cost during that period. But after that, the cost should come into line with manufacturing cost.
     
  15. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    MikeKy, although I do not guarantee this is the case in the story Nexium and Clariten the drug makers have a law that allows them to apply for a 7 year extension if they have made a change in the drug. The application automatically extends the original proection while it is examined. And almost all requests are extended regardless of the degree of change. So we are not talking about being able to prescribe the generic since its protection has been extended.
     
  16. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    I'll neverwillingly use Compaq servers again after the two shiny new 7000s we bought crapped out after four months in operation within a week of each other. All drives were warped.

    Expensive bastards, too, what with several gigs of RAM and four processors. Compaq's server line sucks.

    Coincidentally, the biggest problem I ever had with a Dell was a 6300 with a wonky internal tape drive. It was a bitch to replace...but I was able to do it myself, without waiting for someone to show up, like what you'd have to do with Compaq.

    SM
     

Share This Page