economist says abolish copyright patents to save the economy

[gideongallery]

http://torrentfreak.com/economists-a...conomy-090310/

[Fletch XXX]

great thread

[smutnut]

I say abolish the economy to save copyright

It ain't doing shit for me anyway!

[camgirlshide]

interesting video
The only problem I have is at the end where they talk about figuring out a way to do things better without a patent getting in the way.

You are welcome to do something better, just not the same.

[XPays]

the constitution of the U.S. established protections for Americans and those doing biz in America for a reason.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by XPays

the constitution of the U.S. established protections for Americans and those doing biz in America for a reason.

really, I am curious, what exactly are you referring to here?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

please tell me what section you refer to in the post above

[cykoe6]

Intellectual property laws and patents are the key to innovation. Without them we would make very little progress. Why spend the time and money developing life saving drugs if you will not benefit financially? Why spend the money and time to shoot porn?

What a terrible idea.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by camgirlshide

interesting video
The only problem I have is at the end where they talk about figuring out a way to do things better without a patent getting in the way.

You are welcome to do something better, just not the same.

i personally think this is the reaction to an over extension of the monopoly power of copyright
extending the life of copyright every time MM would have come into the public domain is getting people pissed off.

I however believe that this is the other extreme and the middle ground of what the law was originally stated as is good enough "reigning in" of IP monopoly.

Make abuses of fair use punishable under the sherman anti trust law (3x revenue damages) would balance the act adequately and keep the insentive to produce unprofitable art.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

Intellectual property laws and patents are the key to innovation. Without them we would make very little progress. Why spend the time and money developing life saving drugs if you will not benefit financially? Why spend the money and time to shoot porn?

What a terrible idea.

that happened to be the same arguement in favor of tarrifs too.
Look at the explosion of innovation when those barriers to trade disappeared.

[notoldschool]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

Intellectual property laws and patents are the key to innovation. Without them we would make very little progress. Why spend the time and money developing life saving drugs if you will not benefit financially? Why spend the money and time to shoot porn?

What a terrible idea.

i think I agree with you on this one.

[dav3]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

Intellectual property laws and patents are the key to innovation. Without them we would make very little progress. Why spend the time and money developing life saving drugs if you will not benefit financially? Why spend the money and time to shoot porn?

What a terrible idea.

Yea you're right. It's dumb idea to create life saving drugs simply because one would actually want to help people.

[HorseShit]

winner winner chicken dinner

[Fletch XXX]

the drugs example is actually probably not the best one considering there are companies trying top patent marijuana related medicine, when you simply cannot let a corporation patent the chemical model for THC. This is example of how things are out of control in regards to patents. As member of http://www.safeaccessnow.org I fight for patients, with doctors on my side.

come on, get real, you guys actually want to sit back and let corporations place patents on chemical make up of natural plants LOL

i am fully against companies using patent laws to stop real cannabis reearch or medicine while they try and patent the THC chemical

LOL when they start using patent laws to patent natural chemicals, i think its gotten out of control. the "life saving drug" example is NOT the best one in this case

http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/CMFiles...92006-9297.pdf

[smutnut]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

Why spend the time and money developing life saving drugs if you will not benefit financially? Why spend the money and time to shoot porn?

I know what you're driving at but this comparison makes me chuckle. I actually think porn offers more than the drugs they claim to be life saving. Most of the drugs I see advertised are to make my dick get bigger or get rid of some acne if I don't mind possibly having my hair fall out and my asshole growing colon cancer.

Oops, almost forgot about Dr. Jarvis Green and his walk throughs in the art museums for Lipitor!

[XPays]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

really, I am curious, what exactly are you referring to here?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

please tell me what section you refer to in the post above

The importance of granting monopolies for new inventions has been recognized in the United States since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. In Article I, section 8, the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

[INever]

I always thought good porn made your dick bigger. Like who needs drugs for that? Anyway, without copyright protection, innovation will cease, and we'll be living in a total Idiocracy if we're not already.

[cykoe6]

Originally Posted by dav3

Yea you're right. It's dumb idea to create life saving drugs simply because one would actually want to help people.

It costs millions of dollars and years of research to create new drugs and test their safety. Without patents then drug research could only be done with government funding. Companies do not spend millions trying to innovate because they want to help people. They are trying to make money.

I guess people will still spend money shooting porn so they can "help people" as well. Will the models and photographers and technicians no longer get paid because they want to "help people"?

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

that happened to be the same arguement in favor of tarrifs too.
Look at the explosion of innovation when those barriers to trade disappeared.

Let's say you took away patents from drug makers. Do you believe that would lead to better innovative drugs?

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by XPays

The importance of granting monopolies for new inventions has been recognized in the United States since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. In Article I, section 8, the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

ty, i do note "limited time"

[notoldschool]

Originally Posted by dav3

Yea you're right. It's dumb idea to create life saving drugs simply because one would actually want to help people.

In theory that sounds great, but in the real world money is all being.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Let's say you took away patents from drug makers. Do you believe that would lead to better innovative drugs?

technology has advanced in the cost effective testing of drugs
technology has improved the speed in which new drugs can be developed.
yet the life of patents have INCREASED.
i am not for getting rid of patents completely, just putting them back to the level they were at when we started.

if that were to happen companies would be forced to make new wonder drugs quickly to replace the revenue of the old drugs when they become "generic" and open to copying in the free market.

remember i said i disagree with the economist, we don't have free trade, we have free-er trade, there are still tarrifs, there are still import restrictions and safety standards.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

technology has advanced in the cost effective testing of drugs
technology has improved the speed in which new drugs can be developed.
yet the life of patents have INCREASED.
i am not for getting rid of patents completely, just putting them back to the level they were at when we started.

if that were to happen companies would be forced to make new wonder drugs quickly to replace the revenue of the old drugs when they become "generic" and open to copying in the free market.

remember i said i disagree with the economist, we don't have free trade, we have free-er trade, there are still tarrifs, there are still import restrictions and safety standards.

Drugs can't be made quickly and that's a good thing. They need to go through years of testing internally and through the FDA before being approved.

I don't have an issue changing some of the patent laws that allow drug makers to patent the same thing over and over with some different verbiage, but I don't want to see drugs rushed out the door without proper testing because a company is afraid of someone else using their innovation for profit.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by dav3

Yea you're right. It's dumb idea to create life saving drugs simply because one would actually want to help people.

I know as a Communist you will never understand, so please feel free to go out and come up with a life saving cure and provide it for free.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

come on, get real, you guys actually want to sit back and let corporations place patents on chemical make up of natural plants LOL

http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/CMFiles...92006-9297.pdf

this is a classic example of the over extending of IP law, under the original patent law the "natural plant" would represent prior art.

it only under the new revised "necessary for business growth" extensions of the law that these types of absurd patents are allowed.

[slavdogg]

i say we abolish trademark laws
fuck trademarks !!
drug patents should be strengthened IMO. I have no problem with drug patents, in fact i think they should be 25 years from the day of first marketing and not the day of first invention. Keep in mind it takes 8-12 years to get a drug to market.

technology process patents should be abolished.
They hinder free market innovation and business

trademark laws should be rewritten by economists and not corporate lawyers.
But for the most part should be abolished

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by baddog

I know as a Communist you will never understand, so please feel free to go out and come up with a life saving cure and provide it for free.

Most research on lifesaving drugs is done with government money.

Most research on erection pills is done with private money.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

but I don't want to see drugs rushed out the door without proper testing because a company is afraid of someone else using their innovation for profit.

you do realize the link I posted regarding drugs actually shows the drug was released to the public BEFORE they were issued patent, right? If you think the FDA doesnt rush drugs through, and that patents stop that in any way, you are way incorrect.

http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/CMFiles...92006-9297.pdf

Sativex is perfect example for this thread.

Company patented "THC" in pill form and want to stop others from making pills using THC. THC however, is a natural chemical and should never be patented in the first place.

Again though, in my post above I link perfect exacmple of drug that was released to public BEFORE patent was issued.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Drugs can't be made quickly and that's a good thing. They need to go through years of testing internally and through the FDA before being approved.

I don't have an issue changing some of the patent laws that allow drug makers to patent the same thing over and over with some different verbiage, but I don't want to see drugs rushed out the door without proper testing because a company is afraid of someone else using their innovation for profit.

i suggest you read the chapter 9 of the book

http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

you do realize the link I posted regarding drugs actually shows the drug was released to the public BEFORE they were issued patent, right? If you think the FDA doesnt rush drugs through, and that patents stop that in any way, you are way incorrect.

http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/CMFiles...92006-9297.pdf

Sativex is perfect example for this thread.

Company patented "THC" in pill form and want to stop others from making pills using THC. THC however, is a natural chemical and should never be patented in the first place.

Again though, in my post above I link perfect exacmple of drug that was released to public BEFORE patent was issued.

I'm not in Canada nor do I know what their drug administration does. I was talking about the U.S., where Sativex is still in testing stages and not available.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I'm not in Canada nor do I know what their drug administration does. I was talking about the U.S., where Sativex is still in testing stages and not available.

no, you tried to say that drugs shouldnt be rushed if there is no patent, and i showed you example of a drug that was RELEASED to the PUBLIC before patent, nothing to do with canada or US.

but I don't want to see drugs rushed out the door without proper testing because a company is afraid of someone else using their innovation for profit.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

no, you tried to say that drugs shouldnt be rushed if there is no patent, and i showed you example of a drug that was RELEASED to the PUBLIC before patent, nothing to do with canada or US.

I was saying that drugs period shouldn't be rushed regardless of patent or not. I don't care if there is a patent or not on it. I don't know why a drug would be treated differently by the FDA whether it has a patent or not.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I was saying that drugs period shouldn't be rushed regardless of patent or not. I don't care if there is a patent or not on it. I don't know why a drug would be treated differently by the FDA whether it has a patent or not.

but you are using that as an excuse to justify giving drug companies ever increasing patent life

but I don't want to see drugs rushed out the door without proper testing because a company is afraid of someone else using their innovation for profit.

strict testing rules are more than enough to stop that anyway, you don't need to give them a longer patent life to do that.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I was saying that drugs period shouldn't be rushed regardless of patent or not.

homie, my point was, the drugs are not rushed because of or lack of patent. You claimed they shouldnt be rushed, no one says otherwise... but claiming that companies will not release drugs to the public unless they have patent is simply not true, as proved by my example.

not sure why its hard to grasp this...

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I don't know why a drug would be treated differently by the FDA whether it has a patent or not.

my point also was, the FDA has been shown to rush drugs, regardless of patent, safety or lack therof...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23815358/

Vioxx, Bextra, Rezulin, Baycol. Looking at drugs yanked off the market, Harvard researchers found a disturbing pattern: Medicines approved right on deadline by the Food and Drug Administration are more likely to cause safety problems later than those cleared with more time to spare.

the FDA is not the best example here either, considering theyve been sued so much over drugs and safety regarding them. And usually over RUSHING THE DRUGS TO MARKET by okaying them before deadlines...

As a member of http://www.safeaccessnow.org we have sued the FDA over its lack of scientific evidence regarding medicinal marijuana.

So i dont put much trust in the FDA as someone who has sued them LOL

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

homie, my point was, the drugs are not rushed because of or lack of patent. You claimed they shouldnt be rushed, no one says otherwise... but claiming that companies will not release drugs to the public unless they have patent is simply not true, as proved by my example.

not sure why its hard to grasp this...

I don't know where you are getting this from. I never said that a company will not release a drug to the public unless they have patent. My comment was when Gideon stated that shortening the patent life would cause drug companies to come up with new ones quicker. I said that it's not a good idea to rush drug companies.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I don't know where you are getting this from. I never said that a company will not release a drug to the public unless they have patent. My comment was when Gideon stated that shortening the patent life would cause drug companies to come up with new ones quicker.

my take on your post:

but I don't want to see drugs rushed out the door without proper testing because a company is afraid of someone else using their innovation for profit.

was that you were using that as defense of patent laws regarding drugs.

I said that it's not a good idea to rush drug companies.

Again though, what you seem to be not grasping is, the FDA rushes things itself, no need to rush the "drug companies" you have it backwards, the drug makers usually want to get it to market as fast as they can, you are twisting it to seem as if they are being rushed, not the case. The drug makers are the ones pushing things through... not the other way around.

The FDA has been sued too many times over these rushed drugs to use them as argument for safety in here.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

but you are using that as an excuse to justify giving drug companies ever increasing patent life

strict testing rules are more than enough to stop that anyway, you don't need to give them a longer patent life to do that.

There is more to the creation of a drug than just FDA testing. I think if you pressure companies even more to speed up the process of creating a drug, mistakes will be made. I'd much rather have a drug in my body that was thoroughly vetted than one that was hastily created because the Pharm company had its patent running out.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

http://torrentfreak.com/economists-a...conomy-090310/

The problem with this guy is the word "idea".

He says "owning the original idea" and "controling others use of an idea".

There is no such thing in any copyright or patent that prevents anyone from
using the "idea"


Fact : You can't legally copyright "an idea"...only the expression of the idea can be copyrighted.

For example :

1. I can not copyright the idea to write a love song, only the love song I actually wrote.
2. I can not copyright the idea to build a free site with porn, only the site I actually built.
3. I can not copyright the idea to make an automobile, just the design I actually draw up.
4. I can not copyright the idea to make a shotgun with a red ruby site, elephant trunk
barrel, lion head handle, pearl trigger, with embeded blowjob videos in the stock;
only the shotgun with a red ruby site, elephant trunk
barrel, lion head handle, pearl trigger, with embeded blowjob videos in the stock that I
actually draw up or make.


I can start a pizza delivery place with 30 minute guarantee just like Domino's.
But the Domino's name is trademarked and I can't use that.
But the Domino's name is not the idea, is it? It's all about the fast pizza right?
Why do I need to copy the name if my pizza is good and delivery is fast?
Isn't copying the pizza/delivery idea enough? If so, then this guy's argument is garbage.

Nothing in any copyright, patent or trademark law stops anyone from "copying an idea".

What this guy really wants to do is steal your shit and sell it for less.
He can sell it for less because he didn't spend $100k developing the actual "idea"
into a "physical reality" like you did and doesn't need to recoup any money.

Further, ask most people on this board how it has benefitted them that illegal tube
sites ignore copyrights. You will not get a positive answer.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

Again though, what you seem to be not grasping is, the FDA rushes things itself, no need to rush the "drug companies" you have it backwards, the drug makers usually want to get it to market as fast as they can, you are twisting it to seem as if they are being rushed, not the case. The drug makers are the ones pushing things through... not the other way around.

I'm saying they would be rushed even more if their patents ran out faster. If a drug company needs to come out with a big drug ever 2 years instead of 5 because their patents are shorter, they'll be even more rushed than they currently are.

I'm not talking about things currently, everything is based off the hypothetical scenario of patent terms being reduced.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I don't know where you are getting this from. I never said that a company will not release a drug to the public unless they have patent. My comment was when Gideon stated that shortening the patent life would cause drug companies to come up with new ones quicker. I said that it's not a good idea to rush drug companies.

reread the chapter i gave you, i never said you would rush the drug companies to push unsafe drugs out.
accelerated advancement would happen due to competition
suppose i created a new drug and starts the testing and patent process (say 5 years)
a scientist sees a small flaw in the formula allowing it to be tweeked that could improve it performance by 200%.

under the current drug system that improvement would not hit the market until after the patent expires on the original drug.(25 years)

assume you got rid of the patents all together a new company would be able to make that small change

they would still have to go thru the 5 years of testing before they would be allowed to sell the super improved version of the drug. Which would mean that there would be 5 years of monopoly profits for the older less efficient version.

The testing time would become the barrier to entry for the product, which would create an insentive to maximize safety since it would be the only barrier to entry for the derived drugs.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

reread the chapter i gave you, i never said you would rush the drug companies to push unsafe drugs out.
accelerated advancement would happen due to competition
suppose i created a new drug and starts the testing and patent process (say 5 years)
a scientist sees a small flaw in the formula allowing it to be tweeked that could improve it performance by 200%.

under the current drug system that improvement would not hit the market until after the patent expires on the original drug.(25 years)

assume you got rid of the patents all together a new company would be able to make that small change

they would still have to go thru the 5 years of testing before they would be allowed to sell the super improved version of the drug. Which would mean that there would be 5 years of monopoly profits for the older less efficient version.

The testing time would become the barrier to entry for the product, which would create an insentive to maximize safety since it would be the only barrier to entry for the derived drugs.

and even if they doubled the legally required testing time to 10 years (significantly improving the ability to identify side effects) it still would represent a faster development of drugs than the extending of patent life.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

reread the chapter i gave you, i never said you would rush the drug companies to push unsafe drugs out.
accelerated advancement would happen due to competition
suppose i created a new drug and starts the testing and patent process (say 5 years)
a scientist sees a small flaw in the formula allowing it to be tweeked that could improve it performance by 200%.

under the current drug system that improvement would not hit the market until after the patent expires on the original drug.(25 years)

assume you got rid of the patents all together a new company would be able to make that small change

they would still have to go thru the 5 years of testing before they would be allowed to sell the super improved version of the drug. Which would mean that there would be 5 years of monopoly profits for the older less efficient version.

The testing time would become the barrier to entry for the product, which would create an insentive to maximize safety since it would be the only barrier to entry for the derived drugs.

Assuming you got rid of patents altogether, the initial drug would have never been created and this scenario would be moot.

You seem to feel that drug companies pump billions into creating new drugs for fun.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by dav3

Yea you're right. It's dumb idea to create life saving drugs simply because one would actually want to help people.

Let us know when you finish creating this life saving drug.

Oh wait.....you don't have any money to do that.

Maybe you can take out a loan and use your copyright of this drug as collateral.

Hmmmmmmm?????

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I'm saying they would be rushed even more if their patents ran out faster. If a drug company needs to come out with a big drug ever 2 years instead of 5 because their patents are shorter, they'll be even more rushed than they currently are.

i dont want to argue about this stuff, but fact is, you make it sound like companies need *new* drugs every two years because there patent will run out.... ummm.... you are proving why the patent is the problem and dont know it.

The reason drug makers want *new* drugs is so people cannot make "generic versions" of the pill. You must also not be aware that most old people simply do not purchase "name brand" drugs and go after "generic" versions because they cost significantly less...

Sorry, but you want to allow drug makers to keep using patients and sick people as pawns in their patent game and are missing a big part of the story here.

Once a drug has been made, you dont need a *new* one every two years LOL After two years other companies can then begin making that drug. Its a cycle, a game and they use sick people to play it.

This is like saying only Bayer should be able to make Aspirin, that effectively is what you are supporting. One company to make one drug and hold sick people as prisoner to purchase that drug only. You know how many companies make ASPIRIN??? Why should we ever turn that over to one company?

the only reason drug makers make new forms of same drug every few years is to manipulate patent law and abuse them, if you annot grasp that no amount of my typing will help you.

You encourage their abuse, I say we should have generic drugs too.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Assuming you got rid of patents altogether, the initial drug would have never been created and this scenario would be moot.

You seem to feel that drug companies pump billions into creating new drugs for fun.

they would not be creating it for fun
but for the x years of monopoly profits as the next competitive version goes thru the testing cycle.

of course the R&D cost would be significantly smaller since you would not have to re-invent the wheel so to speak to get the new wonder drug, just focus on making the small but significant improvement over the previous version.

competition would spur innovation, safety standards would create the barrier to entry, and allow monopoly profits for the term of testing. Drug companies would have a profit motivation to extend testing rather than shorten it.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

i dont want to argue about this stuff, but fact is, you make it sound like companies need *new* drugs every two years because there patent will run out.... ummm.... you are proving why the patent is the problem and dont know it.

The reason drug makers want *new* drugs is so people cannot make "generic versions" of the pill. You must also not be aware that most old people simply do not purchase "name brand" drugs and go after "generic" versions because they cost significantly less...

Sorry, but you want to allow drug makers to keep using patients and sick people as pawns in their patent game and are missing a big part of the story here.

Once a drug has been made, you dont need a *new* one every two years LOL After two years other companies can then begin making that drug. Its a cycle, a game and they use sick people to play it.

This is like saying only Bayer should be able to make Aspirin, that effectively is what you are supporting. One company to make one drug and hold sick people as prisoner to purchase that drug only. You know how many companies make ASPIRIN??? Why should we ever turn that over to one company?

the only reason drug makers make new forms of same drug every few years is to manipulate patent law and abuse them, if you annot grasp that no amount of my typing will help you.

You encourage their abuse, I say we should have generic drugs too.

Do you really believe companies will put billions of research and development into a drug if they aren't allowed to profit from it exclusively over the years? You guys seem to have this belief that if patents didn't exist, these companies would continue to pump billions into making new drugs.

The system isn't perfect, and in fact it does suck. People are used as pawns and profit goes above health many times. But the only alternative solution to that is to completely nationalize the drug industry and have our tax dollars fund the development of every drug out there. That way profits don't matter.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

they would not be creating it for fun
but for the x years of monopoly profits as the next competitive version goes thru the testing cycle.

of course the R&D cost would be significantly smaller since you would not have to re-invent the wheel so to speak to get the new wonder drug, just focus on making the small but significant improvement over the previous version.

competition would spur innovation, safety standards would create the barrier to entry, and allow monopoly profits for the term of testing. Drug companies would have a profit motivation to extend testing rather than shorten it.

So what you're saying is this would benefit the drug companies and they should be embracing it?

[Pleasurepays]

The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development has announced it has developed the first comprehensive estimate of the average cost of developing a new biotechnology product, ....
and pegged it at $1.2 billion.

Tufts CSDD said the $1.2 billion estimate reflects the costs of drugs that fail in testing and the time costs associated with bringing a new biopharmaceutical to market. Of this amount, capitalized out-of-pocket preclinical cost totaled $615 million, while similar clinical period cost totaled $626 million.


yeah... they just do it to be kind. certainly shouldn't have their investment and rights protected.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Do you really believe companies will put billions of research and development into a drug if they aren't allowed to profit from it exclusively over the years? You guys seem to have this belief that if patents didn't exist, these companies would continue to pump billions into making new drugs.

No they wouldn't and this goes for movies, music and even porn. Sorry if there is no profit motive most people wouldn't be doing these things. Since they have no income they'd have to get other jobs to make living and wouldn't have time for the other stuff.

I find it ironic that these guys' book is copyrighted.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

So what you're saying is this would benefit the drug companies and they should be embracing it?

no of course not
i am saying that elimination of patents would create a new nash equilibrium that would create an economic insentive to increase testing.

Look now they have 25 years of monopoly profits and they have to do nothing to get it.

the new system would give them 10 years of monopoly profits and they would have to spend money to test all the possible drug interactions to make sure it was safe before they marketed it.

The second cost them money but benefits comsumers.

The plus side is that each development would be cheaper to make because you could use the previous sucess as base. this benefits all drug companies equally, while the current law benefits the older establish companies who have huge patent archives that they can use to stop competition by forcing them to re-invent the wheel to get their drugs to the market (wasting development money).

the establish companies want to protect the status quo. The status quo is the enemy of innovation.