The Financial Times of London has a interesting article by John Kay on the history of ulcer remedies, with broader lessons for IP policy (the entire article is for subscribers only).

One point: The history of ulcer remedies was affected by the fact that drugs are patentable (and therefore lucrative), but treatment protocols are not. Kay notes the danger that proprietary remedies may therefore drive out non-proprietary ones; the proprietary ones are likely to have well funded lobbies behind them. The sense of the article is that he would like to see both options kept alive.

I share the sentiment that the world should allow both options. But I don't share the cynicism... that is, I think the well-fundedness of proprietary remedies gives that model a staying power that is due to far more than "lobbying." It generates revenues that can fund further research, distribution and so on. Against something like a bird flu pandemic, one wants that power to be deployed.

And I also read in this message a caution against an ideological bias in favor of the "open," which may blunt the force of markets.

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 10:10 AM | General, Patents, Pharma

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)