First and foremost, I don’t want to characterize EAs in general. However, that being said, my personal views on IP rights is derived from basic microeconomics: if you can’t patent/etc. your inventions, then someone else can come along and copy whatever it is you spent time and money developing—and sell it at a cheaper cost since they didn’t have to pay for most of the research and development. In some cases you might plausibly still be able to make some money, but in many cases the original inventor will struggle to pay off their R&D costs. And no return on investment = no initial investment (unless it was a purely charitable endeavor) = no product.
yes, I agree EAs have different opinions; I was seeking to understand the one I do not follow. Maybe asking for the “general” EA view was the wrong phrasing.
Your reply explains well why an individual or small organization might want to protect patent rights to capitalize, or at the very least preserve investment, to allow for future R&D.
Where I cannot understand the purpose of securing IP rights, is in situations where there is philanthropic money to fund the R&D. If philanthropists fund the original R&D, then “someone else can come along and copy whatever it is you spent time and money developing—and sell it at a cheaper cost since they didn’t have to pay for most of the research and development”, which would ultimately provide the product to more people at a lesser cost.
The other situation I don’t understand the protection of IP rights is for the transnational pharmaceutical corporations in pandemics. Vaccines seem to be the most equitable and effective means (vs closures, restricted travel and trade, or the alternative, unmitigated spread of disease) to save lives and shorten pandemics. While the rapid R&D of mRNA vaccines must have been expensive, the major vaccine producers received public and donated funds for their development, via PPP. Pfizer reported revenue for 2021 of double the prior year, primarily due to vaccine revenue. Their R&D was both funded up front, and presumably recouped. At what level of profit should lives take precedence?
I don’t have much experience with philanthropic R&D+patenting situations, but one potential reason for that would be to at least partially mitigate the investment costs, allowing the philanthropic investor to also invest the money in other fields. In this sense, even some modest degree of profit (~4%) might be socially optimal. However, it’s true that any investor in such a situation needs to consider the costs and benefits carefully—and especially in situations where, for example, someone else could contribute with manufacturing innovations to reduce manufacturing costs, I think such a philanthropic investor probably should discuss the situation with the manufacturer to get more information.
As to why it might be justified in some circumstances to make some profit:
Profit can be reinvested later/elsewhere to save other lives: Obviously, I don’t think “profit” in a purely selfish, monetary sense should take precedence over lives. However, a philanthropic investor may be able to turn some profit into life-saving (or otherwise beneficial) innovations in the future, in which case it’s not about money vs. lives, it’s about [money which may be used to save future lives] vs. saving lives right now.
Philanthropic-investment obligations: I think there are also a few investment situations/organizations that basically are semi-charitable, in that they tell investors something like “You shouldn’t invest in us if you want to make a serious profit, but we will try to break even while also maximizing wellbeing with your investment,” in which case it might be a matter of [breaking your promises to stakeholders which results in you getting less money that can be used to save future lives] vs. saving lives right now.
Ultimately, I think it’s important to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis, and I certainly am not categorically opposed to patents, and I believe that in some cases it might seem like the best thing to do would be to ignore IP/patent restrictions, but that would actually lead to long term harms which outweigh the short term gains.
First and foremost, I don’t want to characterize EAs in general. However, that being said, my personal views on IP rights is derived from basic microeconomics: if you can’t patent/etc. your inventions, then someone else can come along and copy whatever it is you spent time and money developing—and sell it at a cheaper cost since they didn’t have to pay for most of the research and development. In some cases you might plausibly still be able to make some money, but in many cases the original inventor will struggle to pay off their R&D costs.
And no return on investment = no initial investment (unless it was a purely charitable endeavor) = no product.
yes, I agree EAs have different opinions; I was seeking to understand the one I do not follow. Maybe asking for the “general” EA view was the wrong phrasing.
Your reply explains well why an individual or small organization might want to protect patent rights to capitalize, or at the very least preserve investment, to allow for future R&D.
Where I cannot understand the purpose of securing IP rights, is in situations where there is philanthropic money to fund the R&D. If philanthropists fund the original R&D, then “someone else can come along and copy whatever it is you spent time and money developing—and sell it at a cheaper cost since they didn’t have to pay for most of the research and development”, which would ultimately provide the product to more people at a lesser cost.
The other situation I don’t understand the protection of IP rights is for the transnational pharmaceutical corporations in pandemics. Vaccines seem to be the most equitable and effective means (vs closures, restricted travel and trade, or the alternative, unmitigated spread of disease) to save lives and shorten pandemics. While the rapid R&D of mRNA vaccines must have been expensive, the major vaccine producers received public and donated funds for their development, via PPP. Pfizer reported revenue for 2021 of double the prior year, primarily due to vaccine revenue. Their R&D was both funded up front, and presumably recouped. At what level of profit should lives take precedence?
I don’t have much experience with philanthropic R&D+patenting situations, but one potential reason for that would be to at least partially mitigate the investment costs, allowing the philanthropic investor to also invest the money in other fields. In this sense, even some modest degree of profit (~4%) might be socially optimal. However, it’s true that any investor in such a situation needs to consider the costs and benefits carefully—and especially in situations where, for example, someone else could contribute with manufacturing innovations to reduce manufacturing costs, I think such a philanthropic investor probably should discuss the situation with the manufacturer to get more information.
As to why it might be justified in some circumstances to make some profit:
Profit can be reinvested later/elsewhere to save other lives: Obviously, I don’t think “profit” in a purely selfish, monetary sense should take precedence over lives. However, a philanthropic investor may be able to turn some profit into life-saving (or otherwise beneficial) innovations in the future, in which case it’s not about money vs. lives, it’s about [money which may be used to save future lives] vs. saving lives right now.
Philanthropic-investment obligations: I think there are also a few investment situations/organizations that basically are semi-charitable, in that they tell investors something like “You shouldn’t invest in us if you want to make a serious profit, but we will try to break even while also maximizing wellbeing with your investment,” in which case it might be a matter of [breaking your promises to stakeholders which results in you getting less money that can be used to save future lives] vs. saving lives right now.
Ultimately, I think it’s important to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis, and I certainly am not categorically opposed to patents, and I believe that in some cases it might seem like the best thing to do would be to ignore IP/patent restrictions, but that would actually lead to long term harms which outweigh the short term gains.