The CP has been tried and failed.

Andrei Iancu and David Kappos, “Replacing Patents with Prizes Bad for Innovation,” Boston Hearld, 08-20-2023, https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/08/20/iancu-kappos-replacing-patents-with-prizes-bad-for-patients/

Instead of using patents to reward and encourage invention — as the U.S. has done with stunning success for over 200 years — Sanders wants the government to offer prize money.

As former directors of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, we can promise that this plan would be devastating for the future of U.S. leadership in drug research. We know this because Sanders’ gambit has been tested centuries ago and well-studied more recently — by economists at Bowdoin College, Harvard, and Stanford, among others. They’ve all rejected the notion that prize systems can replace the incentives created by patents.

The insurmountable fact is that private-sector investment accounts for the lion’s share of new drug discoveries. In 2019 alone, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry invested $83 billion in research and development. That’s nearly double the annual budget of the entire National Institutes of Health, the current source of most federal research grants.

But investors don’t pour billions of dollars into drug research for fun. They’re drawn by the incentive structure. America’s intellectual property system lets developers patent their inventions, affording them a period of temporary market exclusivity. That gives investors the security they need to commit funds. While a drug is under patent, investors have a chance to recoup their upfront expenditure plus earn some profit.

This system encourages investment in research and development, creating a robust and self-sustaining pipeline of new drug candidates. And it has made the United States the world leader in drug invention. About 44% of all drugs in development worldwide originate within our borders.