Rejecting perfectly good drugs because they made a clerical error?
When did that happen?
Driving the costs of these drugs through the roof, just because there might be a few bad men? I hope you are sure, because I am not.
"a few bad men" = a profit focussed industry that will try and get away with as much naughtiness as possible. And even if they're weren't naughty we'd need to do all the tests anyway in case they were accidently producing unsafe or ineffective drugs.
I do not propose any form of protection.
Yes you did.
Like I've stated before, you can't copy everything, you only copy the succesfull ideas. And if these ideas are succesfull allready, fruits have allready been plucked. That's how you pay for R&D. Apple is a very good example, it made billions being innovative, it has stopped doing that and strated protecting it's marketshare. Would be interesting to see where they go from here.
Companies A and B each have £1 billion. Company A spends that on research for a new product (estimated market £1 billion)(let's say they develop a new material that combats current leakage in transistors). Company B does nothing. At the end of the research Company A have £0 and Company B have £1 billion. Company A start to sell the product, company B copies it. Company B has £1 billion left for a massive marketting campaign and gains 90 % of the market share. Company B is left with lots of money, Company A goes bankrupt. You create a climate where innovating is not economically sensible.
Regulation does not drive product safety, the market does. Market changed first, law followed.
I agree with you on the concept of the patent, the idea is nice. The real world application not so, so I am against.
I don't really see how you can seperate those...