&gt; This isn&#x27;t an argument at all. It&#x27;s better for people to be unemployed than to be employed in an enterprise that makes everyone else worse off.<p>Are you hinting at a specific company? I don&#x27;t think the people that got cured from metastatic cancer would agree that they would be better of without Merck and their PD-L1 antibodies.<p>To be clear I&#x27;m responding to ekianjo&#x27;s
&gt; If we could kill patents altogether that would be a much nicer step.
I&#x27;m also not in favor of patenting natural products, gene sequences and traditional cures.<p>I am in favor of establishing a system where a companies would have a solid return on investment while still having the drug available to everybody without damaging the incentive to invest billions to come up with only a handful of drugs.
The problem is, the drug market is not a free market, an individual has no reasonable way of saying &quot;I don&#x27;t agree to your price and I will thus not use your product.&quot; ... as consumers have with normal products.<p>&gt;Of course there would. We had drug development before we had patents.
Perhaps I should say: There would be no efficient, lean very driven companies looking for drugs. Off course there may have been people who found drugs out of hobby of while being paid for by the state.