Asking me to take less profit for the benefit of others is Socialism.

I DID NOT SAY THIS! But nice work trying to label me as such I have since been convinced that you are only capable of seeing black and white, and that you are always right.

You go on to also talk about the investment costs, but this is mostly irrelevant since you stated that you already had the cure. YOU HAVE ALREADY INVESTED! You are now sitting there with $50 million less and a cure, and you chose to lose $50 million because you the most money you can possibly have, and doing so reject other principles that you have considered important. I asked you a simple question, is money more important than your values?

I never once stated that the benefits of others should outweigh yours, but they also do not need to be exclusive of each other. A cure would help others, but my point was entirely that selling the cure without a patent can still be a profitable venture (since the number of your customers grow). You also LOSE more by not selling, than you would be selling, and since the venture was to make money (as you stated), you don't sell for less profit because you hold on to your capitalistic principles? This is why I ask about your principles, because you are against things like murder, pharmaceutical giants making money of treatments not cures (HIV meds), but you abandon those because you want MORE profit? So I ask, is money the end all and be all of your world?

In fact, I think I worked out why you think this falls under socialism, and not understanding my point. You are actually thinking more about "society" than I am...You see this as a "I must benefit more than them, for me to be satisfied". when in fact I am not thinking about their benefit as such, but appealing to your own arguments (I think entirely about YOU here, but you only see money as a possible reward, and somehow have put a price on this that is higher than that of the value to the consumer). I also feel you are rejecting what I say, because you have developed this ideology in your head and are tying this into what I am saying, and then taking offence to this (with comments such as "how dare you..."). I have not ONCE appealed for the greater good of humanity, and have given examples of how this benefits you and your ideals...

I am bored of this argument, I do not concede defeat, I just have better things to do than to argue with someone who is fighting his own fears...

"how many different proofs do I need to create to validate it?"

You need to create them?

Also, Socialism is a move away from personal gain, which I was arguing still exists in your case...I do not support the ideology of no patents, but in your case, well, I have said it enough times...

"not to empower large businesses."

Selling to ever business no longer empowers them (and you still profit...go figure)

"So yes I withhold as a way to fight."

Nope, that wouldn't make a difference, since noone would know you would be making a stand...unless you told everyone you had a cure, at which point you paint a giant target on your head...

"someone who is fighting his own fears..."

"Your talk is of letting go into the ideals of socialism (how many different proofs do I need to create to validate it?) and just giving up."

You are thinking about society, I am not...you just refuse to benefit society (and seeing any benefit to society as socialism)...

Let's say that you would sell the cure under a patent system to 1 buyer for $100 million...

Now without a patent, you can sell to 3 different companies for $33.3 million (since they would be considering that is a bargain since research was $50 million).

Now this is not garaunteed, but since you already had the cure, you could in fact TRY and if you COULD do it, you would not be losing a single thing...what I am saying, is that you would basically be putting a value on the product (working it out if it were under a patent) and then work out how many you could sell it to. Since your customers multiply, you can sell for less to each customer and still be making a stack of money.

I am utterly amazed by how Einstein trolls this discussion into partisan debate, turning a partisan discussion about the moral deficiencies of the current intellectual property / patent laws, to a debate on socialism vs. conservatism, complete with his misnomer of capitalism, as if conservatism owned the patent on it.  It is futile to speak with him.

i vote conservative, and im pretty right-wing:

"Asking me to take less profit for the benefit of others is Socialism."

is not socialism,

Socialism is when the government owns the means of production and distribution. For political purposes it is intentionally perverted as a pejorative term and as the lead-in for thought-terminating cliches wherever free-market sociopaths and their philosophy is placed in question. It's part argumentum ad metum, summoning the boogeyman of modern McCarthyism; but mostly false dichotomy - that which is not purely free market is labeled as socialism. It is being (mis)used solely to stifle intelligent discussion. It's use is like a neon sign that says "Don't even bother".

That's funny...

My socialist quote is directly from wiki

Shall I get it from a dictionary?

It is directly a part of the topic.

Your idea is socialism.

Pure and simple.

Not anarchy, not libertarian, nor conservative in nature... it is socialism.

And you never once even tried (unlike Wornstrum, credit where credit is due) to address the conundrum I described.

You are the failure here.

Heck you got two days to earn that thousand (I am getting bored)

"And you never once even tried (unlike Wornstrum, credit where credit is due) to address the conundrum I described."

The answer you are looking for is one validating socialism, not trying to convince you to release the cure.

> Simon wrote:

> As for burying your research somewhere and wait 5-7 years...good luck. Scientific discovery is continuous. You have no guarantee someone else isn't going to independently discover the same thing during that time. Especially, and I repeat, especially, when you yourself implied that it's such a simple drug that it can recreated through business dialog. There are hundreds of pharmaceutical companies out there, each with millions to invest and hundreds of the top distinguished scientists. I know which horse I'm placing my bets on.

Except that if we're operating in the theoretical world where patents wouldn't exist, if you buried your research that was done before the patent ended, and economic incentives did not exist to entice businesses to invest in the invention afterwards due to the lack of patents... the hundreds of pharmaceuticals with millions to invest may have the capacity to do so, but wouldn't have the reason to do so.  Remember, further study would be, from an economic perspective, a purely sunk cost at that point... so why would the competition care enough to do the research required to screw Flint over?

By burying the research, he does get the added benefit that he can hold out and hope patents are reinstated (for a bigger profit than just a straight loss).  And actually, that leads to an interesting irony.

Let's say patents are eliminated in 2010, and the repeal is to be brought up again for consideration in 2012.  The profit-motivated inventor with a patent to protect has a vested interest in returning to a patent world.  The primary argument favoring that stance is that inventors won't invent as much.  So for the profit-motivated inventor to increase the odds of patents being reinstated, that person has to reduce total invention output... i.e., the inventor has an incentive to bury inventions, if only for the purpose of downplaying any benefits from the no-patent system. 

Good points Zarf.

Although 2 years in your scenario may be a bit short, considering a drug can easily take 10+ years in the pipeline. I can't begin to guess how long instead of 2 years. I agree profit-motivated inventors may have an incentive to bury their inventions for the reason you mentioned above. But, if they invented something already, then whatever they invested in their own invention is already the sink cost; they are not getting that back regardless. Thus, they have an incentive to recuperate some cost (or maybe even make something).

We're talking about a hypothetical situation.  The point of the matter is that had copyrights been in effect, the church would have copyrighted bibles.