If a person found a cure for AIDS, should they be able to charge whatever they want for it?

I'm interested to see what you put.

No.

They should charge a reasonable fee for everyone just as they do with all other medications.

Finding the cure for AIDS is like finding the cure for cancer, alzheimer's or any other debilitating illness. It is something that should be so needed that the person who discovers said cure is willing to announce it for low cost or free. If someone was inches away from dying but couldn't afford to pay for your cure, would you let them, if you knew the cure could save them, just because they couldn't pay?? Hopefully not. :)

Yes. That is precisely the intent of the trademark and patent section of the US Constitution.

They should be able to make enough money to pay for their time etc, but should not make it so expensive that some people can not afford it.

It's quite a paradox. We (society) expect drug companies to bear the expense of building huge high tech laboratories, hire and pay the best researchers and develop miracle cures.

Then we expect them to carry outrageously expensive liability insurance because if the drug doesn't do exactly what we want, we'll sue them into oblivion.

My personal opinion? They should charge whatever the market will pay. It's a product like any other.

um, more than likely, they would sell, or offer the cure to science, or the govt. from there, im sure, the cost would depend on the availablity of the "ingredients". If in the event of a cure, there would be a vaccine so it could be controlled...good question, but im sure there is something that the govt. could do to get it, if there was an outragous price...

Absolutely. If you are able to invent something new out of your own brain, probably using a significant amount of your own money and a huge amount of time, that invention rightfully belongs to you and you should be able to do whatever you wish with it, whether that means giving it away, charging exorbitant amounts for it, or burning the formula and never releasing it.

However, as a human being, I would hope that person would make the humanitarian choice and allow the cure to become widespread by making it affordable to those who most desperately need it. I just wouldn't want anyone telling the scientist that he or she HAD to make that decision.

If your family was dying from thirst and I controlled the path to well water, should I charge them what every and as much as I want to?

Should a shot, to cure SEXUAL disease be $2,000,000.00 because I invented it?

An airplane, at 40,000 feet develops engine failure. There is enough time and enough parachutes for the 250 passengers.

Would it be wrong for me to demand $5,000,000.00, in cash, right now, for a parachute?

Pretty much, "yes." If I spent billions of dollars to come up with a cure, I'd want my investment to pay off. Nobody is in business to go bankrupt. If the companies are unable to recoup losses, they are also unable to continue to function, which means they are also unable to provide cures for other diseases and we loose out on our future as a whole. The trademark system is also set up to have a life span. In other words, after a certain amount of time, the companies must release their secrets - hence, "generic drugs".

Now, if they are largely funded by gifts, you certainly have a different argument. So I say, donate to these companies your life savings and the portion of your income that you don't absolutely need to survive. Make sure that it is given under the stipulation that the cost of the solution be reduced by the amount you donate over the life of the patent.

In an ideal world, they would not charge like that. But, in an ideal world, there would be no such thing as AIDS.