> Without this "privilege" a company has no incentive to develop anything new
While that is true about companies it is not true about people. There are numerous people who do research into specific medical conditions for reasons other than money. While I'm not saying Crowley didn't make a fair shake of money with his companies
There was a clear motivation to save his own, and other children's lives.
Would companies stop entirely or would not for profits arise in their place?
I think it's disingenuous to imply that there is no other way that medical research could ever happen.
One also has to examine the moral dilemma faced in this situation. Respect international intellectual property laws and quite literally allow millions to die OR "steal" the drug?
Now run the dilemma again but it's your own child.
Is it right? Would you do it?
Free software movements point to the probability that software would likely still exist in a world where it was declared that all software should be priced at ${arbitrary}.
I feel like the truth is far more nuanced than you're allowing for here. There's far more than money on the line and if I were the one dying of a $65,000/year cancer I'd also struggle to respect the international laws that were willing to consign me to death if the profit on the materials was in the 99% range.
I never though I'd see someone on HN extol the virtues of a pharmaceutical company executive and Republican!
No doubt that there are more incentives than just money, but you do realize that John Crowley is filthy stinking rich from the sales of his company to Genzyme, right?
> I never though I'd see someone on HN extol the virtues of a pharmaceutical company executive and Republican!
Ha ha I appreciate your comment (and if it's sarcastic/funny it's actually hilarious)
But otherwise it's Ad hominem. I'm presenting him as a more nuanced human than just than just a guy who sold a company for $200M (http://newsok.com/novazyme-example-of-promise/article/275860...) and who's name gets floated as a possible (R) candidate (but who doesn't take on the role).
Perhaps he's one of the numerous Republicans who are dissatisfied with the entire radical wing. I don't know anything about that. Maybe the reason he repeatedly chose not to run or accept an appointment is he wasn't radical enough. After all, many do say that even Reagan wouldn't make it in today's Republican party.
Making a founder's share of $200M is probably fair payoff for saving all those children's lives (potentially ~10,000 cases in the USA)... especially when compared to a share of $1B for enabling the absoloute clusterfuck of idiocy that is TUMBLR.
Do Zuckerburg, Brin and Graham deserve the same derision for also being filthy stinking rich? Do all other motives get thrown out the window when they get a life changing payday?
Anyways, the sum of a person is more than their net worth and their political affiliations. I'm sure there are a handful of good people who are also Republicans.
I get where you're coming from, but I think what my point is is that you can have altruistic intentions and get filthy stinking rich in the process. In fact, you can be nothing but a greedy pig and still do good in the world.
While that is true about companies it is not true about people. There are numerous people who do research into specific medical conditions for reasons other than money. While I'm not saying Crowley didn't make a fair shake of money with his companies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Crowley_(biotech_executive...
There was a clear motivation to save his own, and other children's lives.
Would companies stop entirely or would not for profits arise in their place?
I think it's disingenuous to imply that there is no other way that medical research could ever happen.
One also has to examine the moral dilemma faced in this situation. Respect international intellectual property laws and quite literally allow millions to die OR "steal" the drug?
Now run the dilemma again but it's your own child.
Is it right? Would you do it?
Free software movements point to the probability that software would likely still exist in a world where it was declared that all software should be priced at ${arbitrary}.
I feel like the truth is far more nuanced than you're allowing for here. There's far more than money on the line and if I were the one dying of a $65,000/year cancer I'd also struggle to respect the international laws that were willing to consign me to death if the profit on the materials was in the 99% range.