[E. Pluribus Unum]

If you want the benefits of private research, then you'll have to pay for the product or nobody will make the investment. If you want all research to be done by the government, don't complain when you get the results.

So there is no debate on the proper role of "intellectual property" laws?

The original intent of such laws was to encourage innovation, but now that there are 10^12th patent attorneys churning the patent laws the same way trial lawyers are churning tort laws, innovation is coming to a standstill. One of three University research projects is being abandoned these days to to conflicts with somebody's intellectual property.

So what is the proper role of these laws? To enrich lawyers? Or to encourage innovation?

[Carry_Okie]

So there is no debate on the proper role of "intellectual property" laws?

Did I say there wasn't?

The point is, if the company that made this discovery hadn't anticipated a profit, we wouldn't know about the relationship between B12 and homocistine and wouldn't have the benefit of that discovery.

If you want that information to be free to all, then buy it and give it away if you want. If you want the government to buy it, then by all means, call your Congressman.

Do you think a design is property but information isn't? Do you think people who do the hard work of discovery and take the enormous risks to put ideas into practice don't deserve to profit by it? You want the benefits of someone's labor but don't want to pay for it?

You bet there's a debate. Covetousness is so old that we have a Commandment against it.