BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The product of a firm's intellectual endeavor is the property of that firm, and it deserves to profit from it

When a firm directs individuals to mix their labor with its capital or other resources, part of that firm's identity inheres in the product that arises from the effort. This is the origin of, and fundamental philosophical justification for, property rights. Property rights are an unquestioned mainstay of life in all developed countries, and are an essential prerequisite for stable markets to develop and function1. The law protects patent rights in much the same way as more conventional physical property, as well it should. Individuals and firms generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, such as a new drug formula, have a property right on those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone's head that he does not act up, and intellectual property that can be protected by a patent. Developing a new drug is a very intensive endeavor, taking time, energy, and usually a considerable amount of financial investment2. The cost of developing a new drug varies widely, from a low of $800 million to nearly $2 billion per drug and is rising3. People and firms deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. For this reason, stealing intellectual property, which developing generic drugs is, is the same as stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. As a matter of principle, property rights can be assigned to intangible assets like drug formulae, and in practice they are a necessity to many firms' financial survival. 1Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company. 2 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry". The Congress of the United States. Available:  3 Masia, Neal, 2008, "The Cost of Developing a New Drug", Focus on Intellectual Property Rights, America.gov, Available: improve this
The current patent system is unjust and creates perverse incentives that benefit large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of ordinary citizens

There is nothing unjust about the patent system. It protects everyone equally. The nature of democracy is such that people are allowed to express their opinions and to organize to further certain aims. Drug companies have a particular interest in protecting their patent rights so it is only natural that they should involve themselves in the process of how those patents should be treated legally. They are not miscreants, but rather are participants in a system that is designed to be as fair as possible for everyone. improve this
Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency

Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages.
Patent rights allow firms to more readily release their products and methods into the public domain, particularly through licensing

If firms are afraid their formulae will be stolen, then they should keep them hidden. Otherwise, they should seek to make their new drug public, benefiting everyone so that the most people possible can have access to them. The release of ideas is most bountiful when there is active and constant competition to produce newer and better products and ideas. This is only possible in the absence of constricting patent protections. Furthermore, firms' attempts to "invent around" patents do not actually benefit anyone, as their aim is often not to improve upon existing models, but to design products that are as close to replicas as possible without violating law. This is a gross misallocation of resources created by the unjust patents regime. improve this
Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products

Research and development will continue, irrespective of intellectual property rights. The desire of firms to stay ahead of the competition will drive them to invest in research regardless. That their profits will be diminished by the removal of intellectual property rights is only natural and due to the fact that they will no longer have monopoly control over their intangible assets, and will thus not be able to engage in the rent-seeking behavior inherent in monopoly control of products. The costs of commercialization, which include building factories, developing markets, etc., are often much higher than the costs of the initial conception of an idea1 these are areas where competition will force down costs. Furthermore, there will always be demand for a brand name over a generic product. In this way the initial producer can still profit more than generic producers, if not at monopolistic levels. 1Markey, Justice Howard. 1975. Special Problems in Patent Cases, 66 F.R.D. 529. improve this
The current patent system is unjust and creates perverse incentives that benefit large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of ordinary citizens

The current drug patent regime is largely designed to benefit and shield the profits of large pharmaceutical companies. This is due to the fact that most of the laws on drug patents were written by lobbyists and voted upon by politicians in the pay of those firms. The pharmaceutical industry is simply massive and has one of the most powerful lobbies in most democratic states, particularly the United States. The laws are orchestrated to contain special loopholes, which these firms can exploit in order to maximize profits at the expense of the taxpayer and of justice. For example, through a process called "evergreening", drug firms essentially re-patent drugs when they near expiration by patenting certain compounds or variations of the drug1. This can extend the life of some patents indefinitely ensuring firms can milk customers at monopoly prices long after any possible costs of research or discovery are recouped. A harm that arises from this is the enervating effect that patents can generate in firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of such patents, firms are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of drug patents will invigorate economic dynamism. 1 Faunce, Thomas. 2004. "The Awful Truth About Evergreening". The Age. Available: improve this
Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency

The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value. 1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. "Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug". Mises Institute. Available:  2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. "Patent Rent-Seeking". Cato at Liberty. Available:  4 Flanders Today. 2010. "Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages". Flanders Today.
You cannot own an idea, and thus cannot hold patents, especially to vital drugs

An individual's idea, so long as it rests solely in his mind or is kept safely hidden, belongs to him. When he disseminates it to everyone and makes it public, it becomes part of the public domain, and belongs to anyone who can use it. If individuals or firms want to keep something a secret, like a production method, then they should keep it to themselves and be careful with how they disseminate their product. One should not, however, expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea one has, since no such ownership right exists1. No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over something like a drug formula is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their asset. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to everyone. This should apply all the more with vital drugs that are fundamentally for the public good by improving health. 1Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company. improve this
Patent rights allow firms to more readily release their products and methods into the public domain, particularly through licensing

Without patent protection, innovative and enterprising firms lacking the capacity to market successfully or efficiently produce new drugs might develop new drugs and never release them, since it would simply result in others profiting from their efforts. After all, no one likes to see others profit by their hard work, and leaving them nothing; such is tantamount to slavery. Patent protection encourages the release of new ideas and products to the public, which serves to benefit society generally1. The main mechanism for this is the system of licensing, by which firs can retain their right of ownership over a drug while essentially renting the ability to produce it to firms with productive capacities that would better capitalize on the new product. Furthermore, the disclosure of ideas to the public allows firms to try to make the product better by "inventing around" the initial design, or by exploiting it once the term of the patent expires2. If the drug formula never enters the public, it might never do so, leaving society bereft of a potentially valuable asset. 1 Rockwell, Llewellyn. 2011. "The Google Pharm Case". Mises Daily. Available:  2 Business Line. 2007. "Patents Grant Freedom to Invent Around". Hindu Business Line. Available: improve this
Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products

When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product or drug, people and firms put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people's intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries' investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The US pharmaceutical industry alone spends tens of billions of dollars every year on researching new drugs1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment. Without the protection of patents, new drugs lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the formula and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Patent protection is particularly important to companies with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, such as pharmaceutical firms. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished as they will not be guaranteed a payback for their research costs as a competitor could simply take the product off them. Within a robust patents system, firms compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to "invent around" one another's patents, leading to gradual improvements in drugs and treatments, benefiting all consumers2. Without patents the drugs companies are trapped in a kind of prisoners' dilemma where both are individually better off by refusing to innovate, yet both suffer if neither innovates. Patents are the solution to this: if a company innovates, it alone can reap the rewards of the new invention3. In the absence of patent protection there is no incentive to develop new drugs, meaning in the long run more people will suffer from diseases and ailments that might have been cured were it profitable to invest in developing them. Clearly, patent protection is essential for a dynamic, progressive pharmaceutical industry. 1 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry". The Congress of the United States. Available:  2 Nicol, Dianne and Jane Nielsen. 2003. "Patents and Medical Biotechnology: Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry". Center for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper 6. Available:  3 Yale Law & Technology. 2011, "Patents: Essential, if flawed", Available: improve this
Allowing production of generic drugs saves lives, particularly in the developing world

Allowing the sale of generic drugs will not help the plight of the developing world. Many drug companies invest substantial amounts of money, gleaned from the sale of profitable dugs in the developed world, into researching treatments for the developing world. Without the revenues available from patent-protected drug sales, companies' profits will fall, precipitating a reduction in pro bono giving and research. Allowing the production of generic drugs will thus in the long run hurt the developing world. improve this
When generic drugs are legalized firms and individuals no longer feel the incentive to misallocate resources to the race to patent new drugs and to monitor existing patents, or to spend resources stealing from one another

The costs associated with the current patent regime are necessary to the maintenance of innovation. It may be costly, and technically inefficient to police property rights, but that does not make them less of a right. If firms feel they can benefit from fighting infringers of their patent rights, it is their right to do so. The state likewise, has an obligation to protect the rights, physical and intangible, of its citizens and cannot give up on them simply because they prove difficult and costly to enforce. improve this
The product of a firm's intellectual endeavor is the property of that firm, and it deserves to profit from it

No one can own an idea. Thus creating something like a property right over intangible assets is a meaningless endeavor. Doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to anyone who can use it. improve this
It is the only single standard that everyone ends up taking

Applicants are not the same. They come from different backgrounds, attend different schools, and have different opportunities. It is “false meritocracy” to compare them with students from an entirely different background. Students should be examined individually, and their performance compared with other students with a similar background. The best way to do this is to allow individual schools to grade their student body, and to then have Universities compare how those students did vis-à-vis their peers within that school.
Alternative factors that can be considered in the admissions process

The objectivity of SATs does not matter to individual students, many of whom are discriminated against by the tests. Subjective factors can be comparative if students’ backgrounds are taken into account. By contrast, the SAT, by its very use and existence, legitimizes its results as an “objective” measure of ability and capacity, which in turn legitimizes schools in discriminating against the vast majority of poor students who do worse on the exam, even if it helps a few out on an individual level. It would be much better to offer preferences in admission to poorer students than to legitimize discrimination. Subjective criteria can also be successful in determining how successful someone will be in university. In a 1972 study by psychologist Jonathan R. Warre it was found that “Motivation was the quality most frequently cited by over 3400 college teachers” when asked what it takes to succeed in college.[1] Motivation cannot be objectively measured. [1] Elert, ‘The SAT Aptitude of Demographics?’, 1992
Standardized tests are arbitrary

Standardized tests are inherently arbitrary. They reduce an applicant’s entire academic career to a single one-day session. The result is an inherently unrepresentative test which fails to paint an accurate picture. What if a student has a bad day? What if they do poorly on the specific test questions?  In the SAT’s there is an error of measurement of about 30 points either way out of 800, this is the potential difference between where the student really is and what his or her score on the day was.[1] By contrast, looking at their entire academic record ensures that admissions officers will get a far more comprehensive picture of their actual ability. The law of averages means that bad days and tests will be balanced out with good ones, with the result that their academic record, the result of years of work, will reflect their true performance. [1] Cloud, John, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, Time, 1 September 2006, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1521184,00.html
Standardized Tests are skewed in favour of the wealthy

Standardized tests are inherently skewed in favour of high-income students. Tutoring is and industry unto itself and the resulting rise in scores among high income students skews the scale against students whose families cannot afford it. By contrast, even if the money is available, the impact that tutoring can have on a student’s academic performance is limited. A tutor cannot write papers or take tests for them, and nor can they answer questions in class, or participate in sports or other extracurricular activities. As a consequence, eliminating easily tutored standardized tests helps even the playing field between richer and poorer students.
Standardized tests discriminate against minorities

Minority students perform less well on tests like the SAT, even when correction is made for income. The test with its reading comprehension test and being done in English is obviously biased against students from households where English is not the dominant language as they are much less likely to understand the questions. Even when English language skills are not a problem the question choice can contain a cultural bias. One analogy question on the 2003 SAT used the word “regatta” which minority students were unlikely to be familiar with. Having this kind of bias is obviously unfair and can never be fully accounted for in a diverse country such as the United States of America where those who set the wording of the questions will never know all possible perspectives.
Standardized tests exaggerate small differences in performance

Most tests were designed in an earlier era when far fewer students took them. The large number of students who now take tests like the SATs results in a situation in which the scoring scale magnifies small differences in performance into large differences in scores. Two questions wrong out of 80 on the math section of the SAT may well produce a score of 760 while three questions wrong will result in a 720. 40 points can mean difference between admission and rejection for many candidates, while telling us nothing about the different abilities of the students involved. Indeed on average for 88% of applicants their SAT score will predict their final college grade rank no more accurately than a pair of dice.[1] [1] Elert, Glenn, ‘The SAT Aptitude of Demographics?’, 5 May 1992, http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/sat.shtml
Standardized tests result in teachers “teaching the test”

The importance attached to such tests leads to teachers actively “teaching the test.” The result is that many teachers, rather than instilling useful skills or providing a balanced curriculum, end up trying to focus on things that occur on given tests. While this is not a huge problem with the SAT itself, it is a serious problem with subject tests like the SAT 2s, AP Exams, and the British A-Levels. This undermines the provision of education in the country.
It is the only single standard that everyone ends up taking

All measures applied during University admissions processes are arbitrary to one extent or another. Grades depend on the whims on individual instructors, curriculum choices, and school quality. Every single one of the flaws the proposition applies to the SATs or other standardized tests may well be true, but the fact is that they are true for everyone who takes them. The SATs are the only part of the application to a university that every single applicant will likely have been taken, and therefore the only one where all applicants can be objectively compared.
Alternative factors that can be considered in the admissions process

SATs are mathematical and it is therefore possible to objectively evaluate them. This is why they are so popular, they provide a benchmark of comparison across the whole education system in a way that any non-standardized assessment never could. This does not only benefit universities in providing an objective measure to compare admissions candidates but it also gives the government statistics with which to measure the progress of schools. Any other form of assessment would mean switching to much more subjective factors. Traditionally such factors, such as extracurricular activities, volunteer work, and even access to references are all more easily available to high income students. Opportunities may not even be offered in poorer school districts. Complaining that poorer and minority students do less well on the SAT ignores the fact that the test provides one of their best opportunities to impress admissions officials.