Other than liking the nice round number of 20 years, that’s exactly my take. Copyright longevity creates perverse incentives for rights holders, and it locks down the ability of other creators to use common cultural references.

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I’d say no more than 10 years for ANYTHING. Copyright, patent, you name it. I would also prohibit any and all software and design patents.

Trademark would last only as long as actively in use.

[–] Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

These changes alone (without other major reforms) would be particularly catastrophic in sectors that require large investment over a long period of time. For example, pharmaceuticals typically cost billions and take 10-15 years to develop.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Pharmaceuticals is about the worst example you could pick to make a point. It's notorious for socializing the cost and privatizing the profit (not to mention the ethics of price gouging life saving medication treatments).

Here's what Johnson&Johnson is doing right now with a TB drug whose development was paid largely with public funding:

The pill, called bedaquiline, was first approved in 2012 as the first new TB drug in over 40 years and revolutionized treatment for drug-resistant infections. But its relatively high cost limited access in many low- and middle-income countries hit hardest by an epidemic that still kills around 1.5 million people every year, most of them among the world’s poorest. The company initially charged $900 per course in low-income countries, according to a 2016 report, but gradually lowered it to $340 three years ago.

The secondary patent particularly irked some advocates because the drug’s development was largely underwritten by public funds, according to a 2020 analysis. That study found public sector funds contributed $455 million to $747 million to getting bedaquiline to market, compared to $90 million to $240 million from J&J.

[–] Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The pharmaceutical companies would definitely not cut back on their profits, so at "best" they would either get public money to make it several times faster, or they would cut back on quality and safety (*lobbies have entered the chat); and in either case the final price would be higher.
There is plenty of room to get worse, even in the current favorable conditions they prioritize known cost-effective palliative treatments over research into expensive solutions that may lead to nothing.

If the entire health sector were public and concerned itself with saving lives instead of making money, it would be a different story, but that is where we get into major reforms.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)