(October 30, 2012 at 1:15 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: But that is exactly what IP laws prevent, competition!
Two companies working on the same disease, one gets there first, they now own that idea (for 4 years?)? The other's can't get there as well even if they were close? This is anti-competitive. The second company might make it better/safer/cheaper, but they aren't allowed to (for x amount of time).
That it is unlawful was not being questioned, I'm questioning the logic/morality of it being unlawful.
Competition, by itself, is not the purpose of the market. A policy can be regarded as pro-competition and anti-competition in a variety of ways.
Suppose you have a product which dominates the market share because of its attributes like price, availability and quality. By its very nature, allowing you to keep on selling that product to the best of your ability is anti-competitive, because you are destroying your competition.
Not allowing others to use take your product without your permission and sell it as their own is anti-competitive.
The logic behind why we don't say anything goes in name of competition and innovation is that we also believe that you should get to enjoy the full benefits of your labor. If someone else is using your product without your permission and benefiting form it, then you are being denied that.
The problem with the current state of IP laws is that the question of theft/unauthorized use is not determined easily. To use your example, if two companies are working on a cure for the same disease and they come up with the same solution - but do so in completely independent manner, then, ideally, both should be allowed to market their product. However, the difficulty is in determining whether the second company actually did come up with it independently or whether if it would have come up with the same solution irrespective of the first company.
To err on the side of caution, we assume that the first company did come up with the idea on its own and the second one may have plagiarized it, therefore, the first one should have exclusive rights. However, we also assume that the same idea could have occurred to someone else independently within a given range of time and therefore it would be unconscionable to deny someone else the same opportunity.
