this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
56 points (79.8% liked)

Technology

62117 readers
4392 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 52 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Of course not, which is why they're publicly funded. That's the issue. They're using public funds to make private profits.

[–] o_arguido@lemmy.world 24 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It's amazing you even have to explain something so obvious.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 9 points 9 hours ago

People gotta start down the road of anti-capitalism somewhere, right?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

So how should we make this available to people then?

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 16 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

License and release it into the public domain: research, methods, processes, patents—the whole deal.

Privatizing medicine, even elective medicine, just ensures predation.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not following. Making the results public domain doesn't prohibit private companies from manufacturing for profit.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 13 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

No, you got it. It's not about prohibiting profit, it's about preventing the exclusive ability to profit.

Think of generic medicines (in the US) versus brand equivalents and how vast their cost difference is.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Which is reasonable in principle, but when they sell the exclusivity, they're and to put that money back into their research expenses.

I'm okay with public money going to funding research projects that become private profit for a limited time. I'm a capitalist system, which is what we're operating in, this seems to be the most effective. Government partially funds otherwise unprofitable R&D, companies make the product, and ordinary people are able to buy it at reasonable prices, and once exclusivity ends, anyone can make it.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 3 points 3 hours ago

That would be great, except in the US, that exclusivity can last for decades, which means entire generations will come and go before it becomes public.

In a better-regulated system where consumers are put before corporate interests, it could work, but the US hasn't been that for a long time.