From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Wed Jun 05 2002 - 15:34:48 MDT
Randall Randall [mailto:wolfkin@freedomspace.net] wrote:
If the government didn't support monopolies in the first place,
companies wouldn't be able to do this sort of thing. The initial
price of such drugs would be very much higher, but it would fall
more quickly to much lower levels than currently. All IMHO, of
course.
### If not for the intellectual property laws (to which you refer as
"state-granted monopoly"), there would be very few well-researched, novel
drugs, at any price.
The main problem with drug patents (and patents in general) is that their
meaning can be sometimes too easily reinterpreted, inviting competitors,
lawyers and everybody else with a financial stake to join in the melee. This
leads to unpredictability (you don't know if your patent will be overturned,
or allowed to stand in an expanded form to give you great riches). Anybody
who ever ran a business will agree that financial unpredictability costs
money - and in this case it does contribute to increased drug prices.
Impending legal gridlock related to biotech patents already imposes
significant costs on life sciences companies. As Coase wrote, all depends on
the initial property conditions, and I'd say, building on legal quicksand
will cost you extra.
Does anybody on the list have any ideas on how to improve the patent system?
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:36 MST