This sort of thing:

>Well, the pharmaceutical corporations and others claim they need this so
>they can recoup the costs of research and development. But have a close
>look. A very substantial part of the research and development is paid for
>by the public anyway. In a narrow sense, it's on the order of 40-50%. But
>that' s an underestimate, because it doesn't count the basic biology and
>the basic science, which is all publicly funded. So if you get a realistic
>amount, it' s a very high percentage that's publicly paid anyway. Well,
>suppose that went to 100%. Then all the motivation for monopolistic
>pricing would be gone, and there'd be a huge welfare benefit to it.
>There's no justifiable economic motive for not doing this. There's some
>economic motive, profit, but it is an effort to impede growth and
>development.

is invaluable.  It is important to remind ourselves just how much of the
private sector is subsidised by the public sector - particularly with
regard to education costs.  Realistically, research costs should include
education from kindergarten up to university.  All the pharmaceutical
companies do is cream off the good scientific researchers, pay them more
than the Universities do, and then market the research that they never paid
for.  It makes perfect sense to be as restrictive as possible with patents,
if making profits is your reason for existence.  If you actually care about
people, then it's another matter.

I'd be curious to read what our resident capitalist apologists have to say
about this.

Alister