Yes! I can't understand why the media isn't talking about TRIPS and all of the other IP protections that the US baked into other the trade agreements. This is the only thing that matters.

If the US is going to break these agreements, other countries will decide that our IP is not worth protecting. All they need to do is revert to the laws they had before TRIPS and free trade with the US.

It's not just the tech industry. It's movies. It's pharma. It's biotech.

This will economically ruin us.

I've heard a few say that's what we should do here in Australia in response to tariffs. The US has now broken the free trade agreement between out two nations, se we should roll pack IP laws that were only brought in on US request to sign the trade agreement.

I personally think IP hobbles our economy by reducing competition. What's the argument in favor? American companies certainly rely on it to avoid meeting market demand. As a result, our lives are shittier and we pay more for the insult. Why would chinese (or russian, or nigerian, or venezuelan) companies not treat us better? Why are we supposed to overlook the obvious incompetence of domestic corporations when they don't want to even fund my healthcare? I say these companies would be better off burnt down.

I want an economy. Without IP there is no biotech. There is no drug development. There is no games industry, movies, etc.

I would agree that IP protections have gotten out of hand, and that shorter copyright would be beneficial.

But it's not beneficial when some country will decide that our drug patents are worthless because we attacked them with tariffs.

I disagree on drug development. It is important enough we could simply pay for the research. We pay for a lot of it with taxpayer money already while the gains are privatized. The other areas are not critical to our lives and, while there is room for improvement, current IP practices are ok.

> could simply pay for the research

And the Phase X safety and efficacy trials, which comprise the bulk of pharma development costs?

What about it? There's no reason it couldn't be publicly funded.

It could be... but do you really want a massive amount of public funds thrown at low-probability of success endeavors, guided by government efficiency?

Say what you want about the downsides to the current pharma development model, but those companies are highly incentivized to be as efficient with their pipeline spend as they can. And they're pretty damn good at it.

In contrast, if you use government-selected allocation, you'd turn pharma development into military procurement.

The more reasonable approach would be to enter cost-sharing agreements, where the government paid for a share of critical stages, in return for getting certain rights if the drugs were successful.

"Government efficiency" isn't the slur you seem to think. Many parts of the government are administered quite efficiently. And many large companies are not.

You're reading a lot that I didn't write into what I did write.

Do you think a government-administrated drug development program would be more efficient than private industry?