] What's needed here is shame. Politicians know that most ] voters understand squat about how monopolies work best. ] They also know that there won't be a rally on Capitol ] Hill in favor of price discrimination. It is therefore ] cheap to scold big pharma for the "windfall profits" made ] by charging so much more for drugs in the US than in ] other countries. Cheap, and criminal. This behavior by ] politicians simply denies medicine to those who need it ] most. ] ] ] If politicians don't like the logic of price ] discrimination, then let them fund pharmaceutical ] research in a different way. Abolish drug patents, and ] grant rewards for great inventions, or give huge ] subsidies to universities and companies to develop new ] medicines. There are many who believe that would be a ] less expensive, more effective system. And there are many ] who believe that patents in any case, and in every case, ] do more harm than good. [ A good analysis by Lessig... hits on a major problem with politics in general. The system makes it easy to say you "stand for" something that's actually intractible in the real political world. Seems like there should be a Consumer-Reports for politicians, comparing their stated positions to their real actions, calculating a "waffle score" for how often they are self-contradictory perhaps. My cynical side argues that no one would bother to use it, or partisans would refute it's accuracy... -k] Wired 12.02: Lessig says access to drugs in the third world not an IP issue |