I've been doing a lot of research on the healthcare and pharmaceutical markets lately, getting a much better understanding of just how much damage patents have actually done to healthcare (contrary to the opinions of many). There's a lot of scary stuff, the more you dig into it -- but occasionally you come across a surprising story. For example, in the 1940s, the pharma company Merck basically agreed to give up its patent right to block others from making streptomycin, allowing others to create competing products, making it much easier (and cheaper) to treat tuberculosis patients. I would have thought that a similar story would be impossible today, but perhaps not. Against Monopoly points us to the news of a molecular biologist, Jay Keasling, who came up with a much more efficient way to create a malaria drug. And, while he did patent it, he negotiated with his university and drug companies to make sure that no one would gouge the poor with the drug. The drug is going into production and will be sold at cost by Sanofi-Aventis. Apparently such stories can still happen...
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Beyond Open Access And Open Data: Open Science -- And No Patents
- Stupid Patent Of The Month: Sharing Your Hard Copy Documents, But On A Social Network
- Qualcomm Says It's Fighting For The Little Guy, While Really Blocking Patent Reform That Would Help The Little Guy
- Patents On Presentation Of Information Excluded In EU, But Germany Has Just Granted A Patent On A Graphical User Interface
- Why Is The Federal Government Shutting Down A CES Booth Over A Patent Dispute?