Strengthening patent protections does not encourage investment for needed inventions such as treatments for diseases affecting the poor but not economically benefitting the rich

[Eduardo Porter, 4-12-16, NYT economics reporter, NYT, “Lifting the Patent Barrier to New Drugs and Energy Sources,” , accessed: 7-9-24, ES]

Another study of Trips, however, concluded that while patent protection did increase research and development in high-income countries, it did nothing to foster more investment for treatments that combat diseases like malaria that affect the world’s poor but have no market in the rich world.

Tight intellectual property protection can backfire, stopping locals from piggybacking on foreign inventions, discouraging indigenous innovation in less-developed countries.

It is often abused. Numerous studies have documented how pharmaceutical companies play the system. When the original patents on their drugs expire, they discourage the entry of cheap generic rivals by obtaining “secondary” patents covering slight variations that have little or no therapeutic value.

One study found hundreds of secondary patents layered onto two antiretroviral drugs to combat H.I.V., which delayed the entry of generic competition by 12 years.

If overly strict patents on drugs can be counterproductive, the case against them in other industries is even stronger. In high technology, for example, they often encourage troll-like behavior and discourage entrepreneurs from building on the inventions of their predecessors.

“I do not think we need stronger patents than we have now,” said Bronwyn H. Hall, an expert on intellectual property at the University of California, Berkeley. “There is a large body of evidence that suggests patents are not viewed by firms as key to securing returns to innovation, except in the pharma sector and a subset of firms in other sectors.”