Everyone's Got A Pet Project: Patent Maximalist Says We Need Longer Patents To Incentivize Coronavirus Vaccines

from the oh-shut-the-fuck-up dept

Adam Mossoff is one of the most vocal IP maximalist law professors around. He's never seemed to have met a form of artificial monopoly that he didn't want to expand. His latest is that he's claiming, laughably, that we should be extending patent terms in order to incentivize the creation of coronavirus vaccines. His argument is based on a misleading complaint that has been raised by plenty of pharmaceutical companies: they need to file their patent applications at the point of discovery, but they can't market a drug until it receives FDA approval, and that can take years, which cuts into the years over which they hold a monopoly and can extract insane monopoly rents.

Mossoff says that now is the time to revisit that and to roll back the law that made it so the clock started so early, and to enable patent extensions to incentivize drug makers to create a coronavirus vaccine.

Congress can easily fix this mistake in innovation policy. It can enact legislation that reverses the changes made in 1993 and increases the patent term extensions. Instead of attacking patents, Congress should pass legislation providing more protections. It is an easy fix that will save countless more lives from cancer, diabetes, and viruses like the coronavirus.

This is utter nonsense on so many different levels. It assumes -- incorrectly, though a core to all of Mossoff's thinking -- that the ridiculous monopoly profits are the only thing that incentivize creation. Given that tons of companies are already researching coronavirus cures, knowing full well that the reason to do so is to save millions of lives and that governments will easily pay handsomely for such a vaccine, it's difficult to say with a straight face that these companies need more monopoly rents to work on these kinds of solutions.

Even more to the point, there's an obvious fundamental flaw in Mossoff's reasoning. A patent only goes to those who get there first. Every one else trying to create the same drug still has the same capital expenditure upfront to try to develop the drugs or technologies -- but can get blocked by whoever gets to the PTO first. If we take Mossoff's simplistic model that only if a company is guaranteed monopoly rents will they invest in the first place, his own model breaks down, because so many players will invest heavily and get nothing in return, because they were a day or week late.

It seems that a much better model is the way most of the economy works: if you build a good product people and companies and governments pay you for the product, and you don't need the government to step in and say no one can compete with you for two decades (or more, if Mossoff got his way).

Especially at a time when we see patent-related price gauging around COVID-19, all the evidence suggests we should be moving in the other direction -- opening up the ability for more companies to innovate and compete in a free market. Indeed, if Mossoff actually wanted real incentives that also compensates drug developers, you'd think he'd be much more supportive of the innovation prize approach, that basically gives a ton of cash over to those who develop breakthrough drugs in a prize format, but then still allow the drugs to be offered to those who need them at a reasonable price. Then you actually have people who can afford the drugs to stay healthy, rather than just acting as a siphon to drain people's bank accounts to pay off pharma companies who bought most of the research off of smaller labs who did the actual work with government funding in the first place.

Filed Under: adam mossoff, coronavirus, economics, incentives, patent terms, patents, vaccines

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 26 Mar 2020 @ 7:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "... that I and other attorneys like me were making false statements in an attempt to deceive others."

    You are certainly making false statements. I'll take your claim to being an actual attorney with a ton of salt but should, unlikely as it seems, that actually be the case I can only suggest a career change because you are barely on the level of Richard Liebowitz, going by your arguments around here.

    "The point being made by Prof. Mossoff..."

    Appears to be that an already indefensibly long term of monopolization is being shortened rather than lengthened and this is somehow threatening the poor pharmaceutical companies which are...still being some of the most ridiculously lucrative businesses to be found on any market.

    "As a consequence of the patent term being effectively reduced over the past couple of decades, pharmaceutical companies have become much more selective in their research and development endeavors..."

    Of course they have, ever since they discovered that for all intents and purposes it pays BETTER to let public tax money fund the actual research and then just undertake the "oner" of marketing the drug and claim the patent.

    "Mossoff’s point, which I believe is a fair one, is that legal disincentives to the broad based pursuit of pharmaceutical research projects are shortsighted."

    There may be a point there, actually. Strip pharmaceutical companies of development and patent rights, continue to fund all actual development of pharmaceuticals through tax money, then have the pharmaceuticals bid against each other for the right of marketing the product. They'll be able to trim down to small and agile marketing agencies in NO time.

    "Mocking the individual, as well as casting aspersions at others who espouse views not readily shared by Masnick and Company, was uncalled for."

    No, actually. Anyone claiming the emperor is fully clad while his dingleberries are on full display deserves only mockery.
    But hey, thanks again, Baghdad Bob, for bringing us the current word of the "Astroturfning on the cheap" marketing agencies.

    Now go collect your 50 cents. You've earned it.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.