Hacker News Reader

Comment by NicoJuicy | Hacker News Reader

The guy that destroyed millions of research dollars and made it useless to sell obviously.

Innovation should always reap rewards, it's all dependant on how the owner wants it rewarded.

Some could share it as "open-source" if it was code, but at the end of the day. It's their choice, not from the thief.

Why is it when Indian companies steal patents to make generic medicine they are cheered for it, but when a Chinese company does it, they are vilified?

> Why is it when Indian companies steal patents to make generic medicine they are cheered for it, but when a Chinese company does it, they are vilified?

I can see personally defending both types of theft, and I agree that they are probably morally equivalent (all else being equal); but I'm not sure that one can make a blanket declaration that people generally do defend Indian patent theft. Do you have references?

International law specifically allows poor countries to manufacture their own medicines, bypassing patents that might otherwise apply.

Of course, the rice here was not patented -- according to the article, it was just a trade secret.

> International law specifically allows poor countries to manufacture their own medicines, bypassing patents that might otherwise apply.

> Of course, the rice here was not patented -- according to the article, it was just a trade secret.

This seems to have little to do with my question, which was:

> > I can see personally defending both types of theft, and I agree that they are probably morally equivalent (all else being equal); but I'm not sure that one can make a blanket declaration that people generally do defend Indian patent theft. Do you have references?

Did you perhaps intend to reply to my parent (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20788203)?

I intend the exemption to patent protection for poor countries as an example of people defending Indian patent theft.

> The guy that destroyed millions of research dollars

How? Want explain how that works?

Elaborate your viewpoint

Numbers made up to illustrate a point:

Company invests $75 million. Gross revenues of $150 million. Net profit $75 million. Companies exist in perpetuity, so that net profit gets reinvested in new research to develop more advances.

Alternate scenario: Company invests $75 million. IP stolen and company recoups $0. Company goes out of business and a successful research organization that took years to build is destroyed.

But wait, how is the company getting "destroyed" if nothing really happens to it?

Where does the money come from for continued operations?

Well, it doesn't in that scenario, but also in god knows how many others.

You can equally well blame competitors for "criminally" driving you out of business.

Is driving a company out of business be now a crime for anybody else?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com