Societal views on patents

This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (February 2012)

Legal scholars, economists, activists, policymakers, industries, and trade organizations have held differing views on patents and engaged in contentious debates on the subject. Critical perspectives emerged in the nineteenth century, and recent debates have discussed the merits and faults of software patents and biological patents.

These debates are part of a larger discourse on intellectual property protection which also reflects differing perspectives on copyright.

History

Criticism of patents reached an early peak in Victorian Britain between 1850 and 1880, in a campaign against patenting that expanded to target copyright too and, in the judgment of historian Adrian Johns, "remains to this day the strongest [campaign] ever undertaken against intellectual property", coming close to abolishing patents.^[1] Its most prominent activists - Isambard Kingdom Brunel, William Robert Grove, William Armstrong and Robert A. MacFie - were inventors and entrepreneurs, and it was also supported by radical laissez-faire economists (The Economist published anti-patent views), law scholars, scientists (who were concerned that patents were obstructing research) and manufacturers.^[2] Johns summarizes some of their main arguments as follows:^[3]

[Patents] projected an artificial idol of the single inventor, radically denigrated the role of the intellectual commons, and blocked a path to this commons for other citizens — citizens who were all, on this account, potential inventors too. [...] Patentees were the equivalent of squatters on public land — or better, of uncouth market traders who planted their barrows in the middle of the highway and barred the way of the people.

Similar debates took place during that time in other European countries such as France, Prussia, Switzerland and the Netherlands (but not in the USA).^[4]

Based on the criticism of patents as state-granted monopolies inconsistent with free trade, the Netherlands abolished patents in 1869 (having established them in 1817), and did not reintroduce them until 1912.^[5] In Switzerland, criticism of patents delayed the introduction of patent laws until 1907.^[4][5]

Patents and Tragedy of Anticommons

A theoretical problem with patent rights was discussed by law professors Michael Heller and Rebecca Sue Eisenberg. Based on Heller's theory of the tragedy of the anticommons, the authors, while not disputing role of patents in general in motivating invention and disclosure, argue that biomedical research was one of several key areas where intellectual property rights may become so fragmented that, effectively, no one can take advantage of them as to do so would require an agreement between the owners of all of the fragments. On the other hand, authors weren't sure if the problem they predict, is persistent or transitional (in the latter case, holders of intellectual property rights will find ways to address the problem when it arises, for example, via patent pools). ^[6] Recently there has been a growing concern among economists^[7] and scientists^[8] that patents have been shown to retard technical progress and innovation. New fields such as biotechnology or nanotechnology appear to be disproportionally hampered. For example, Ars Technica reports that "there are over 1,600 US patents that mention single-walled carbon nanotubes. Intel has one that covers any with a diameter of less than 50nm; Rice University holds one for any material that is over 99 percent pure nanotube. The nightmare faced by anyone attempting to innovate in that space should be obvious." ^[9] For a full discussion see the criticisms of intellectual monopoly.

Patent trolls

A long standing argument against patents is that they may hinder innovation and give rise to "troll" entities. ^[10] A holding company, pejoratively known as a "patent troll", owns a portfolio of patents, and sues others for infringement of these patents while doing little to develop the technology itself.^[11]

Pharmaceutical patents

In 2003, World Trade Organization (WTO) reached an agreement, which provides a developing country with options for obtaining needed medications under compulsory licensing or importation of cheaper versions of the drugs, even before patent expiration.^[12]

Recently this issue has received additional coverage with regards to HIV and AIDS drugs. Governments and companies in Brazil, India, Thailand and Uganda have started to challenge pharmaceutical patents, arguing that human lives are more important than patents, copyright, international trade laws, and the economic interest of the pharmaceutical industry. Anti-retroviral therapy has long been unaffordable for people suffering from HIV/AIDS in developing countries, and proponents of generic antiviral drugs argue that the human need justifies the breach of patent law. When the Thai Government Pharmaceutical Organization started producing generic antiviral drugs in March 2002 the cost of a monthly treatment for one person plummeted from $500-$750 to $30, hence making treatment more affordable. In response the US government placed Thailand on the list of "copyright violators" despite the fact that the production of antiviral drugs is not subject to copyright, even in the United States. In 2007 the government of Brazil declared Merck's efavirenz anti-retroviral drug a "public interest" medicine, and challenged Merck to negotiate lower prices with the government or have Brazil strip the patent by issuing a compulsory license.^[13][14][15]

It is reported that Ghana, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia have similar plans to produce generic antiviral drugs. Western pharmaceutical companies initially responded with legal challenges, but some have now promised to introduce alternative pricing structures for developing countries and NGOs.^[14][15]

In July 2008 Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir John Sulston called for an international biomedical treaty to clear up issues over patents.^[16]

In response to these criticisms against pharmaceutical patents it has been pointed out that less than 5% of medicines on the WHO’s essential drugs list are subject to patent monopoly^[17] and that countries who believe that these monopolies are impeding health care may not be aware that the medicines in question, particularly for HIV/AIDS related drugs, are not patented in their country.^[17] Another response could be that, without patents or other forms of research funding, the medicines in question would not even have been developed until decades later.^{[citation needed]}

Quoting a World Health Organisation report, Trevor Jones (director of research and development at the Wellcome Foundation, as of 2006) argued in 2006 that patent monopolies do not create monopoly pricing. He argued that the companies given monopolies "set prices largely on the willingness/ability to pay, also taking into account the country, disease and regulation" instead of receiving competition from legalized generics.^[14]

Pseudoscientific patents

Some patents granted in Russia granted have been denounced as pseudoscientific (for example, health-related patents using lunar phase or religious icons).^[18][19][20]

Software patents

See also

• Anti-copyright
• Free culture
• Glossary of patent law terms
• Daftar/Tabel -- patent-related topics
• Criticism of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
• Notable reexaminations
• Patentleft
• Prizes as an alternative to patents

References