Basic economics can tell you that "price <= value to customer" is a relationship that holds pretty damn strongly. Price isn't decoupled from value, it is derived from value. I am just saying that the
actual customer (not some nebulous notion of society) derives value from the scarcity.
Like it or not, people often get value from scarce things, usually in the form of power (or status for other kinds of goods). In a system with compulsory licenses for everyone who wants them, that power is gone, and so is the value related to it.
> The goal of any sane economy should be to deliver the most value to the people in it - including the people who own companies.
Which is why every economy today has a strong patent system with monopolistic rights. It is a very good way to deliver value to inventors and small technology business owners while encouraging disclosure, and a good incentive for them, in turn, to contribute to the wider body of societal knowledge. A system with mandatory non-scarce licenses would not do this - we would end up with more "coke formulas" and fewer papers.
Like it or not, people often get value from scarce things, usually in the form of power (or status for other kinds of goods). In a system with compulsory licenses for everyone who wants them, that power is gone, and so is the value related to it.
> The goal of any sane economy should be to deliver the most value to the people in it - including the people who own companies.
Which is why every economy today has a strong patent system with monopolistic rights. It is a very good way to deliver value to inventors and small technology business owners while encouraging disclosure, and a good incentive for them, in turn, to contribute to the wider body of societal knowledge. A system with mandatory non-scarce licenses would not do this - we would end up with more "coke formulas" and fewer papers.