If someone invents and patents a medication, why should anyone be allowed to sell it?

Why do some liberals think that patents to medications should be allowed to be stolen by anyone and manufactured?

Why don't you feel the same way about other items, such as software, tools, etc....

Do they not think research and development costs money? Do they not realize that if people were allowed to manufacture meds someone else spent money developing, that the developers would no longer research cures and aids?

should I be allowed to buy my non patented copy of windows in china and use it in the U.S.?

This is a classical example of the differences between liberals and conservatives. You put the drug company's profit above the health of people. Thankfully you'll die out like the Neanderthals.

The FDA must approve it. And that can take years.

They arent allowed too, email me for more information

No they are not. That is the basis of our Patent system, if you patent something the government gives you a 20 year monopoly. After that time the monopoly ends and everybody is allowed to manufacture and sell it. The 'legal' monopoly was created as an incentive for people and companies to invest in new technologies.

To get the price as low as possible from free market competition.

I don't know where you got that info. I know of no liberal or
conservative who thinks that way.

Good followup. Buying the company's product in another country does not conflict with patent law.

Pharmaceutical companies seem to own the patents to US politicians.

Recovery of costs is allowed, but is the exploitation of your market legal? Government subsidies of new drug research and development would certainly be a proactive factor in the offset of these drug costs.

As for your argument regarding the prohibitive prices of new tools, software, etc., those things are not necessary for survival. I don't think my life will be shortened if I do not get Windows Vista. Survival and quality of life should not be luxuries, however.

If that is what "some liberals" think, I am sure that "some conservatives" also agree, because they would love to make money from someone else's invention.

"some" is one of the squishiest words you can use in an debate.

I don't know intellectual property law, but I think that if you invent something, you have 15-20 years during which only you can manufacture the product. After the patent expires, it becomes fair game, and generics can be made. The point is so you can you can recuperate the costs of R&D.

I have no idea how American intellectual property law works in other countries.

Patents are there to allow for recovery of innovation costs, and as an incentive to innovate.

The tricky part though comes down to, how much publically funded research did the company use to come up with that new idea? The patent office has been going nuts on that part, allowing patents for ideas anybody with a good knowledge of the subject would have come up with.

In particular with drug companies, there is a certain need to make a drug available if it will save peoples lives, particularly large groups of people. The drug companies are usually aware of this, and take it into account. After all, they are spreading their development costs over a wider group of the public.

I am not sure there is an absolute answer to this one. You sort of have to judge each case on its merits it would seem.

-Dio

(BTW - On the Windows question: that is copyright, not patent, and it would depend on the EULA you agreed to when you opened the package. You don't own windows, you license it. The RIAA is trying to rig the same deal, as is the MPAA. You didn't buy a copy of the CD/Movie, you licensed the right to use it according to the licensing agreement)