Do you think patents are protectionism and inhibit technological progress?

I've been giving this some thought since I've read some opinions on GATT, especially the more recent changes that have made patent laws even stronger.

Think about pharmaceuticals..large corporations are now able to patent the product, not only the process. GATT serves to thwart attempts by poorer nations or smaller companies to produce pharmaceuticals at a cheaper cost. It's not establishing "free trade" as it is called. It is 22,000 pages of international trade regulation that benefits the large corporations.

Have you thought about the repercussions of this? People are dying because they cannot afford the medicines they need. If GATT truly established free trade, then other nations could create the pharmaceuticals at a cheaper cost and we in America as well as other nations could buy them cheaper. Is this ultimately moral, and is it even beneficial to Americans/richer nations? Seems that those who believe in the mutual benefits of free trade would say NO.

 

A person who creates a technology or comes up with a marketable idea deserves to be able to protect their work from being stolen.


Now, I would like to point out that a patent only protects something in the form that was patented. The person who invented the pencil, for example, could not stop someone from marketing a pencil with an eraser, because the eraser is a improvement on the orignal design and is seperate from the original patent

 

You are missing the point. If these corporations are not insured their right to profit and they create something which is just given away for free than they will have no incentive to create new products.

It is essential to make sure that they receive benefits for their hard work and research. If you want to invent or improve something and give it away for free than you should push for yet another governmental department that spends our money than gives away everything for free.

 

I mostly agree, but that is why I specifically spoke about pharmaceuticals. You can't exactly change the ingredients of a medicine to make it something worthy of a new patent.

 

This is why these companies are promised a certain period of time where they are the only ones allowed to sell it. After that the formula is free to be copied by anyone and sold under the "generic" label. However the original company is promised a certain return for their work in inventing it but only for a limited time.

 

Yes, and that seems to be a good idea. It's a balancing act between giving people/companies the reward they deserve for inventing a product/process and allowing the most progress and efficiency in development of products.

But, it seems that it is hard to argue that technology would not progress at a faster rate with a more limited patent time or no patents at all. We could have inhabited Mars by now.

 

Funny that you brought up patents on pharmaceuticals. I participate in Model United Nations, and my position in the club is crisis secretary. Essentially, I create current events that committees must solve in a quick and decisive manner. In the WTO at my school's conference, one of the main topics being discussed was the effects of international patents on pharmaceutical products.

I created a crisis in which Russia, China, South Africa, and one or two other nations were experiencing outrage among their citizens. The patent process of two major (and real) American pharmaceutical companies, one called Gilead Sciences, were stopping production of what is known as HAART, an anti-AIDS medicine. The two companies were complaining about the exorbitant amount of patents. In the meantime, shortages were rampant throughout Russia, China, South Africa, etc. Based upon your analysis, a good twist in my scenario could have been that these companies refused to produce the drugs due to their power over the patent process. They decided to keep world pharmaceutical trade hostage in order to forward their "free trade" objectives.

 

Awesome, diplomat! It's a small world of patents and non-free trade. What solution did you guys come up with?

 

I didn't come up with a solution. The committee members had to concoct one. I merely created the crisis. I typed it out in the form of a breaking news article.

I am not entirely sure how the delegates decided to tackle the issue. They seemed to not understand the severity of the situation, primarily because the nations they represented had different views on economics.

 

I see your point but the question is this: Would companies invest so heavily into research if you reduce the reward they come up with for their invention? Possibly or possibly not.

 

Is it protectionism? Only in the sense that all property rights are protectionism. Are laws against trespassing protectionism?

Does it inhibit technological progress? Sometimes.

It should be much harder to get a patent.

I've read one interesting idea. Set up a government fund to buy select patents and release them into the public domain.

We also need to deal with copyright laws. Reduce the term from 1000 years after the Second Coming or whatever it is now down to 20 years at most.

 

This is the standard line, but there's actually no defense for it other than emotional rhetoric. The incentive for invention is rarely to create something that has broad uses, but to fulfill a need.

Fulfilling a need isn't beneficial? Why should the force of law be used to grant a monopoly to one person or one organization?

Inventing something and not having a government-granted privilege of monopoly over the design or idea is not the same as giving it away for free.

 

And make a hefty profit fulfilling it. Why dismiss the profit motive?

Except in a very few individuals or organizations, the profit motive rules over humanitarian ones.

yes it is, because anyone can make it and therefore profit would be minimal or non-existent within a few weeks of release of the product.

 

Not, it's not the same at all. First of all, real property is tangible. Only one person can ride a bicycle at a time, but multitudes can hum the same tune at the same time.

Property rights exist outside the power of government (and are usually undermined by governments rather than well protected by them.) Grants of privilege over ideas and intangible works can only be protected by government.

If, as you claim, all property rights are protectionism, then would you agree that your government owns you and only, by protectionist statute, merely allows you to control yourself? I doubt that you'd contend that a bureaucrat can, if he so chooses, control your thoughts or your conscious movements.

Trespassing is an infringement on property rights. Since trespass exists in common and natural law, it cannot be called protectionism because common and natural law exists outside government.

There are several private organizations already doing just that. No need to force your neighbors to pay for something that pleases you.

 

Not the patents, but this capitalistic system (power/ideology) inhibits technological progress.
If you have an invention that works against this ideology/system, you don't need a patent.
Remember the DeLorean stainless steel car, factory was closed by the system, because that technological progress was a disadvantage for the system.

 

A drug company should not be allowed to patent a naturally existing resoiurce. They did not create it. If they created the method of processing the ingredienta yes, they should be allowed to patent that, but not the drugs themselves. Sythetic drugs are another thing. They created the forumula they should be allowed to patent it, but not drugs that can be found in nature......That is like a bottled water company being allowed to patent water.

 

Alternatively, your neighbor should pay for something that pleases him. I'm not advocating public funding for patents but a reasonable case can be made particularly if it's a technology of great public health benefit (e.g., a vaccine to a highly deadly and contagious disease).

 

They do it all the time. Patent gettin' ready to run out? Just modify it slightly and repackage it.

 

Actually to justify a new patent there must be a real change in a product. The change must make the product better in some way.....My example earlier was adding an eraser to a pencil would allow a company to bypass a patent on the pencil and market it as a new product.

 

Just for fun....Ambien (a sleep aid) and AmbienCR, (as an example of the BS patent BS that drug companies play) are supposedly two different products. One is under patent, and one isn't. What do you think the difference might be between the two?

 

We definitely need patent reforms.

Clearly, corporations from various industries have manipulated the laws to benefit oligopolies.

 

They are made by the same company, so a patent is not needed if no real change was made to the formula. They still own ther rights over the original version.

This is like thinking coke would be a patent for diet coke........Just take out the sugar....the formula is the same.....

 

One can be generically manufactured and one can't. That affects price.

 

Let me guess.....the one that can be generically made is the one that is under patent, and the drug company that makes it charges companies a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of money tom use it

 

The non generic is the one under patent, and yeah, they charge a ****load more for it.