Perhaps the discovery would have been made regardless and the laws are set up for a few to make a buck to the detriment of society at large (playing devil's advocate here, not convinced this is the case).
Perhaps the discovery would have been made regardless and the laws are set up for a few to make a buck to the detriment of society at large (playing devil's advocate here, not convinced this is the case).
However, universities are a piece of a larger system that includes big corporations in capital-intensive industries, federal/state government, and scientists/engineers themselves. Would universities keep doing research if they couldn't directly make money from licenses? Probably. Would the system keep working if the pharma/petrochem/aerospace/etc industries couldn't protect inventions? Those post-docs doing research at NWU aren't doing it for their love of humanity. They're there so they can get a job at Pfizer, Exxon, Lockheed-Martin, etc. Pfizer, Exxon, etc, certainly aren't in the game for their love of humanity. Would Pfizer keep hiring post-docs if some Chinese manufacturer could flood the market with cheap clone drugs within months of Pfizer bringing a drug to market? The government would keep investing, of course, but would they have to invest more to get the same output if they couldn't dangle the patent licensing carrot in front of researchers?
[citation needed]