A British pharmaceutical company spent years and considerable funds on the development for a treatment for HIV patients. Now, with the protection afforded by patent rights, the company has the potential to reap enourmous gains. The government, in response, has threatened to tax away any rents the company may earn. Is this an advisable policy? Why or why not? (Hint: Contrast the short-run and long-run effects of taxing away the economic rents).
BEST ANSWER for most detailed explanation! Get to know them better. This is not a task only to be accomplished through dating. The more you get to know him or her, the more you can tell if you like them as a friend or something else. Just talk and do fun activities with the person.
Stop and consider why you like the person. There are many physically attractive and smart people out there. But if you see something beyond that really catches your attention, you've marked this person as unique and probably like them. Why else would they stand out from so many?
Consider how many times you think about the person. If you find yourself thinking about this person several times a day, and they are happy thoughts that possibly make your heart beat faster, then you probably like them.
Think how often you laugh at their jokes etc. When you like someone, you will find yourself laughing at things even if they aren't that funny. This is a natural attempt to make them feel appreciated.
If the one conversation between you and the person is stuck in you head and you cant stop telling people about it. this means it was important to you, and you probably like the person.
Consider how much you try to be near them. If you've planned your walking speed to catch a glimpse of them as many times of the day as possible, there is a good reason for that.
Think about how you feel if you touch him or her, by accident or on purpose. If you're still thinking about brushing shoulders several hours ago in school, then that is a special thought and you probably like them.
If you feel you're ready for a relationship, and are confident enough for a positive response, then just go ahead and ask them out. If you're unsure of their feelings for you, there are several wikihows on how to tell if someone likes you. 1. If your question is whether it can, you already know the answer - YES. Particularly since Britain does not have a written constitution, the government can do anything it can get the votes for.
2. If your question is whether it is advisable, the answer depends on your goals and on the nature of the pharmaceuticals industry.
Among the factors to consider:
A. The patent system was created in order to foster innovation - it provides artificial, government sanctioned, monopolies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
There are many arguments to the effect that it isn't working well and actually preventing innovation.
This seems particularly true in the pharmaceuticals industry, where companies frequently make minor modifications with no benefits just to gain patent extensions.
Similarly, there are many complaints about the pharmaceuticals industry and the genetic engineering industry about patenting genomes, etc.
To the extent that it isn't doing its job, it makes sense for governments to modify it.
B. History indicates that the pharmaceuticals industry has much higher profit margins than any other - including high-tech electronics. That suggests that the incentives they are getting for behaving the way are are very high - perhaps too high.
That includes developing drugs that the rich will buy (for erectile dysfunction, hair loss, etc.) but not working on those needed by the poor (malaria, sleeping sickness, etc.)
C. You can choose to cast this as a more general problem of all monopoly profits due to patents, etc., but even there
arguments against the current state of the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_trol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_ambu...
It is overwhelming the case that patents are obtained by big companies, not small or individuals, and that when an important patent is obtained by a small company or an individual, the big corporations use their "deep pockets" to get around the patent.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_a...
Thus, since Britain is a signatory to the international patent treaty and can't just modify patent rights directly, there is a convincing case for the British government to effectively bypass certain patents by taxing their monopoly profits - especially if instead of doing it on an ad hoc basis, it establishes some sort of policy.
3. For the specific case, all governments everywhere have the right to bypass patent privileges for "national security" reasons. Given the scale of the HIV epidemic, it would be easy to argue that it is a matter, not only of national, but global security - especially in Africa and other underdeveloped countries.
Therefore the idea of a government using its powers to coerce a pharmaceuticals company to accept "ordinary" profits while dealing with this threat is not at all unreasonable or unusual - other countries have gone further before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_o...
For example, India has with the AIDS drug Stavudine, allowing Aurobindo to produce a generic version (i.e. not recognizing the Bristol-Myers Squibb patents)
http://www.dancewithshadows.com/business... |
