The counterplan incentivizes innovation at lower costs.
Kavusturan 20 – Elif, Information technology lawyer with more than a decade of work with computer contracts, S.J.D. “REFORMING U.S. PATENT LAW TO ENABLE ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL MEDICINES IN THE ERA OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.”, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Vol. 18, No. 1, https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4650&context=wlulr, 11-xx-2020
The patent system, and the intellectual property regime in general, is one of the many available models aimed at incentivizing innovation.199 Government incentives such as prizes and grants currently complement patents in fields of research where additional incentivization is necessary.200 Many countries also rely on tax incentives to increase R&D activity.201 The United States offers tax incentives for research and experimental expenditures, as well as R&D tax credits, including a credit for pharmaceutical companies engaged in orphan drugs 202 research.203 While prizes and grants directly contribute to R&D funds, tax incentives decrease R&D costs.204
In recent years, costs associated with the patent system have increased interest in alternative incentive methods.205 “[S]trong public interest” in access206 has led to a number of proposals specific to the pharmaceutical industry. These proposals include a global R&D treaty207 and a national medical innovation prize fund,208 both relying on a portion of the gross domestic product (GDP) to fund R&D in the health care industry.209 The models proposed in the following section rely on funding through similar mechanisms to accommodate innovating companies in the absence of patent rights.