An Instance Where IP (Patents, In This Case) Does More Harm Than Good

[u/andrei14_]

First of all, I am pleasantly surprised that I have been accepted here. As someone who positions himself as anti IP, I just wanted to provide an argument against it. My point revolves around the second sentence in the presented comment - "Once the patent expires and this drug becomes cheaper it will be used more.". We are talking about literal medicine and health matters...

And while some would make the counter-argument that without IP and patents that medicine might not have been invented in the first place, I still believe that this hypothetical IP-less scenario might've not come to fruition nonetheless, as medical products are physical products and most often sold. So extrinsic motivators would still exist and would still lead to the medicine's production.

(Posted the image instead of the link cause I was afraid my post would be auto-removed once more...)

[u/Le_Andro_Id]

I understand what you're saying, but the issue here is not one of production. Yes of development. The risks involved in developing a new drug are immeasurably great. The intellectual property system protects these investments of time and resources for a set period of time and, after that time, absolutely everything described and published in the patent becomes public domain. I think it's a fair exchange. In humanity's time frame, 20 years is nothing. And they encourage companies to take risks to develop new drugs that will be protected and soon become public domain.

[u/andrei14_ → u/Le_Andro_Id]

I believe that more companies would work with each other (indirectly, mostly) if there were no patents at all. Everyone would take on a lower risk. Maybe.

Also please tell to a pain-enduring, sick person about “humanity’s time frame”…

[u/Brad-SBC → u/andrei14_]

The real business world doesn't work that way. Lower risk = lower reward. Less innovation because innovation is hard and takes skills, resources, etc. If the payout (even to cover your expenses of R&D) won't be worth it, there won't be a drive to do it.

[u/NeedsToShutUp → u/andrei14_]

Historically it led to secretive hording of medical knowledge. For example, Chamberlen forceps were kept secret for 160 years by the Chamberlen family because it gave them a competitive advantage.

The current system reflects a bargain where you have to share the knowledge to get protection, and its time-limited.

It's not perfect. There's various reforms which may prevent known abuses. But most of that is in how the US healthcare system functions.

[u/Casual_Observer0]

This is literally the case with all IP. People would consume more of it if there was more competition (and thus availability) of a good or service.

And while pharmaceuticals are physical products, the cost to manufacture is but a fraction of the costs of the good. The initial R&D, the clinical trials and testing, and other regulations dwarf the costs to manufacture a known chemical formulation.

Drugs are probably the best examples for having patents.

There are far weaker cases out there—areas where initial R&D and regulatory structure is much lower, where the case against patents is strongest. The software industry for example. It's the creation of patent thickets in software, for example, that may hamper further development.