Economic growth begins with ideas, innovation and creativity. Since the signing of the Constitution, the U.S. has protected the fruits of creativity and innovation through intellectual property protection, primarily expressed as patents, trademarks, copyright and trade secrets.
As our economy has become even more dependent on innovation, intellectual property issues have been pushed to the forefront. The clashes have led some to question the value and even the legitimacy of IP protection. While some of these attacks come from the libertarian perspective, most originate from the same naïve socialist impulses that so demonstrably failed in the realm of real property—but somehow are seen as thoughtful with respect to IP.
IPI believes that creators have the right to own and control the fruits of their creativity, and that the IP system has done an admirable job of not only incentivizing innovation, but also making creative products and services available to the public and transferring technology to the developing world.
Drugmakers Under Siege
Severe acute respiratory syndrome has receded since the epidemic of 2003, but it could one day come back with a vengeance. The world is relying on the pharmaceutical industry to develop a vaccine and effective treatment against SARS and other diseases. Yet drugmakers are being vilified and facing increasing difficulty doing business, hampering their efforts to find a cure for such diseases.
Drug Reimportation and R&D Spending: The Economic Impact on the Illinois Economy
Consumer groups and the media are putting pressure on public officials to allow U.S. citizens to reimport drugs from foreign countries like Canada. Using an economic simulation model, this report concludes reimportation or price controls would have a dramatic negative impact on the Illinois economy, and its large biotech sector.
Has Open Source Reached Its Limits?
Open source is not necessarily the best way to develop software. While it may fill a useful role in specialized computing environments, open source does not translate to the mass market for software. Proponents of open source are vested interests who have substituted myth for reality. Policy makers should not mistakenly assume that this essentially derivative process is any substitute for innovation.
Answering Critics of Pharmaceutical Patents
Of all the recent criticisms leveled at the prescription drug industry, the one that has resonated most is that drug companies are gaming the patent system. However, the Hatch-Waxman Act that governs the role between generics and brand name drugs is very complicated, and it has ultimately weakened intellectual property protections. It is naive to assume that branded companies are sidestepping the rules while generics always play fair.
From Inception to Ingestion:The Cost of Creating New Drugs
The pharmaceutical industry cites studies that suggest it costs more than $800 million to move a new drug through the 10-to-12 year discovery, development and approval process. However, critics claim those estimates are artificially inflated and that the actual costs are much lower. For example, Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen released a study last year claiming that the cost of creating a new drug is only about $110 million (in 2000 dollars). And that includes the cost of failures.
Is there a "Good" Monopoly?
Some forms of monopoly power are not the products of corporate giants trying to eliminate competition, but are granted by the federal government to achieve a social good for society as a whole. That is the case with patents, under which the federal government grants to inventors an exclusive right to make and sell a product or process as a reward to induce and encourage their creative efforts.
Patent Protection for Me, But Not for You
Groups such as Business for Affordable Medicine (BAM) wants to reform the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act in order to get access sooner to cheaper generic drugs. However, those efforts could weaken drug manufacturers’ patents. Interestingly, BAM members also have patents, and they defend those patents if another company tries to infringe them. In particular, GM complains that it has to spend money fighting the expansion of imitation parts — just like the drug manufacturers. Is the intellectual property of pharmaceutical companies less important than the intellectual property of member companies of Business for Affordable Medicine?
Total Records: 207
