|
# # # # Patent protection provides an inventor/discoverer with an exclusive right to prevent or stop others from commercially exploiting the patented invention for a set period of time. Patents are supposed to encourage innovation by providing the patent holder with an unchallenged opportunity to develop and profit from an idea. But it could be argued that patents are increasingly generating more problems than they are solving. In addition, they have led to the hording of data, which reduces collaboration and further limits progress. Luckily there are some ambitious efforts trying to change this. In today’s post, we will discuss some examples of these efforts. # # # # |
The Venetian Patent Statute. Source: Wikipedia
Patents are a form of intellectual property that provide the holder with the legal right to block others from manufacturing or selling an invention during a limited period of time. In exchange, the patent holder will publicly disclose the invention.
The use of patents began on the 19th March, 1474 when the the Venetian Patent Statute was established in the Republic of Venice.
The republic of Venice (in red) across the Mediterranean. Source: Alchetron
The Venetian Patent Statute provided that patents may be granted for “any new and ingenious device, not previously made“, IF that invention was considered useful.
More recently, some folks in the research and legal worlds have started arguing that patents themselves are no longer “useful”.
Patents are suppose to encourage innovation, but in the US alone, the costs brought on by patent trolls (these are holding companies that acquire strategic patents and use legal threats to extract steep royalties) now amounts to 12% of business R&D spending (Source). It is literally blocking innovation rather than stimulating it – if there is no certainty of a profit to cover the cost of royalties, there will be no innovation.
Patent troll. Source: Medium
And patents also inhibit medical research.
Many biotech firms will stop working on novel potential therapies (and even block others from working on them) because there is not a long enough period of time left in the patent to make a “business case” for supporting it.
As we have discussed in a previous post here on the SoPD, 30% of all Phase II clinical trials do not continue on to Phase III not because the therapy fails in terms of efficacy or safety, but rather the companies behind the agent can not find a business model that will justify continuing.
Pause and think about that for a moment.
1/3 of all Phase II trials…
…because limited profits can be made.
This is crazy. What can we do?
The Science of Parkinson's 