[ExI] (The Independent 2013-08) Plumpy'Nut: The lifesaver that costs... well, peanuts
bbenzai at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 21 12:45:00 UTC 2013
> From: Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2013 12:51 PM, "Mike Dougherty" <msd001 at gmail.com>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>
>>> There's no getting round the fact that if you hold a patent on a
> life-saving technology, and enforce that patent to prevent it being
> available for cheaper, people will die because of your decision.
>> How about using the patent to block for-profit business but not waiving
> that option when non-profit and humanitarian/aid providers distribute the
> product ? Is that immoral?
> Some for profit companies save lives while profiting.
Of course, and I'm /definitely not/ saying that nobody should make a profit from saving lives. That should be obvious. What I'm saying is that it's immoral to make a profit /at the cost of lives/. Mike's example is focusing on the wrong thing. The point is not whether you make a profit, but whether you're killing people by withholding a service or product, or by preventing others from providing it. I won't insult anyone's intelligence by going into the "so why don't you forego the profit and provide it for free?" pseudo-argument. Although I suppose someone is bound to raise the idea that if a company is allowed to exclusively profit, they could potentially then save more lives all on their own. Theoretically possible, but I seriously doubt it would pan out in real life.
More information about the extropy-chat