From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 01:34:18 MST
From: Emlyn O'regan [mailto:oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au]
> This could be taken as strong evidence in support of
> intellectual property regulation, in its role as a
> protector/encourager of innovation. What is shown is that, in
> the absense of any mechanism to protect IP in the area of
> illegal drugs, real innovation is very low.
>
> Comments?
Well, to be fair, Shulgin has produced quite a large number of new
compounds in that time. I think the interesting thing here is not
necessarily the total amount of innovation. Rather I'd point out
that:
1) The number of entities engaged in innovation is extremely low
(exactly 1, so far as I can tell).
2) In the absence of economic incentives, that innovation has been
driven by personal preference on the part of the innovator, not
necessarily by the desires of the market.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 01:41:34 MST