I though I was quite clear, but very well: if, as you advocate, the government bans widely used ingredients because “replacements” exist, if the new alternatives are protected by patents (as is typical) you advantage the powerful companies by preventing their (newer, poorer, weaker) competition from using the older off-patent products.
Perhaps I was too charitable in assuming you hadn’t realized who benefits from your policies. If so, I apologize.
In the cases where societally-better replacements are patented—which is a definite minority of cases—governments have rules in place to force companies to license patents to competitors under reasonable terms. Patents only exist because governments enforce them for the sake of overall benefit to society.
I though I was quite clear, but very well: if, as you advocate, the government bans widely used ingredients because “replacements” exist, if the new alternatives are protected by patents (as is typical) you advantage the powerful companies by preventing their (newer, poorer, weaker) competition from using the older off-patent products.
Perhaps I was too charitable in assuming you hadn’t realized who benefits from your policies. If so, I apologize.
In the cases where societally-better replacements are patented—which is a definite minority of cases—governments have rules in place to force companies to license patents to competitors under reasonable terms. Patents only exist because governments enforce them for the sake of overall benefit to society.