IF YOU'RE IN "BIG PHARMA," doing biomedical research in a company or a university, or are a patent attorney, there is an ongoing debate about which you're knowledgeable and probably involved. The issues are far more significant than the one of usual concern — how to speed up the patent process.
Beware the Troll
A "patent troll" is an "accident lawyer" or "ambulance chaser" who practices in the area of patent law. These are lawyers and investors who buy cheaply or assume control over paper patents, mistakenly granted largely to failed companies. Intel's chief patent counsel has stated that a "patent troll" purchased a patent for about $50,000 which infringed all of Intel's microprocessors from the Pentium II onwards, and that they were seeking $7 billion in damages.
Is this "good" because it is an example of initiative and free enterprise? Or is it "bad" because it limits the reward which drives the development process?
Got the Flu?
Roche, a Swiss firm, owns the patents for manufacture of the medication called TAMIFLU (oseltamivir phosphate) which can be used within 48 hours from the onset of Avian flu (H5N1) symptoms. The core problem is that the number ofglobal citizens greatly exceeds the capacity of Roche to produce the medication.
Some countries are considering an approach based on "eminent domain" where they use information in Roche's published patents to enable firms in their country to produce the medication for their citizens without permission of Roche.
Is ‘breaking the patents’ "good" because it shows how governments can protect their citizens in a time when crisis is perceived? Or is it "bad" because it is simple theft of property (intellectual property)?
Congress Weighs In
Congressman Dennis Kucinich has a proposal to eliminate drug patents. He would direct about $25 billion in taxpayer money (about what "Big Pharma" claims to spend on research) to government-backed research organizations — socializeddrug research.
Incidentally, the same argument has been made about exploration for oil and production of gasoline after Exxon and other firms posted "monster quarters" with record earnings in the fall of 2005.
Is this "good" public policy or arrogant confiscation?
Who Decides?
Where should funds for research, today, generally produced by profits from previous work, be spent?
One might think, from patent actions, that drug research should be done to aid bald male persons who are impotent and overweight rather than seeking (as does Bill Gates' foundation) treatments for malaria or AIDS in countries with poor economies.
If Congressman Kucinich's proposal became law in the U.S., would the direction of nearly all medical and pharmaceutical research be established by the beliefs of the political party currently in power? Is that "good?"
Or is that “bad?” Congress currently allocates hundreds of billions of dollars of resources. U.S. citizens accept and enable that outcome, so it must be "good." Right?
Who Knows What?
Patent attorneys don't have perfect or complete knowledge of the art they rule. Who does? Those involved in the art submit their knowledge in briefs attached to current patent applications. The USPTO maintains a web site where the application, drawings, and knowledge submitted by supposedly knowledgeable persons are collected (http: //www.priorart.uspto.gov). The process is called a Wiki ("what I know is"). It's no relation to the Hawaiian Wikiwhich means "quick," "fast," or "to hasten."
Who judges the validity of this information, which may have been submitted by a competitor? Is such a submission a "good" or a "bad" action?
If you're not participating or lobbying in this debate, your firm may be blind-sided. Good blogs and web sites on this topic are http://promotetheprogress.com/, http: //weatherall.blogspot.com/, http://patentlaw.typepad. com/patent.
John Durkee is an independent consultant specializing in critical cleaning for contamination control. Author of the forthcoming book Management of Industrial Cleaning Technology and Processes, to be published in 2006 by Elsevier (ISBN 0-0804-48887). Contact him at PO Box 847, Hunt, TX 78024 or 122 Ridge Rd. West,Hunt, TX 78024; 979-417-7707; Fax 612-677-3170; or jdurkee@precisioncleaning.com
Beware the Troll
A "patent troll" is an "accident lawyer" or "ambulance chaser" who practices in the area of patent law. These are lawyers and investors who buy cheaply or assume control over paper patents, mistakenly granted largely to failed companies. Intel's chief patent counsel has stated that a "patent troll" purchased a patent for about $50,000 which infringed all of Intel's microprocessors from the Pentium II onwards, and that they were seeking $7 billion in damages.
Is this "good" because it is an example of initiative and free enterprise? Or is it "bad" because it limits the reward which drives the development process?
Got the Flu?
Roche, a Swiss firm, owns the patents for manufacture of the medication called TAMIFLU (oseltamivir phosphate) which can be used within 48 hours from the onset of Avian flu (H5N1) symptoms. The core problem is that the number ofglobal citizens greatly exceeds the capacity of Roche to produce the medication.
Some countries are considering an approach based on "eminent domain" where they use information in Roche's published patents to enable firms in their country to produce the medication for their citizens without permission of Roche.
Is ‘breaking the patents’ "good" because it shows how governments can protect their citizens in a time when crisis is perceived? Or is it "bad" because it is simple theft of property (intellectual property)?
Congress Weighs In
Congressman Dennis Kucinich has a proposal to eliminate drug patents. He would direct about $25 billion in taxpayer money (about what "Big Pharma" claims to spend on research) to government-backed research organizations — socializeddrug research.
Incidentally, the same argument has been made about exploration for oil and production of gasoline after Exxon and other firms posted "monster quarters" with record earnings in the fall of 2005.
Is this "good" public policy or arrogant confiscation?
Who Decides?
Where should funds for research, today, generally produced by profits from previous work, be spent?
One might think, from patent actions, that drug research should be done to aid bald male persons who are impotent and overweight rather than seeking (as does Bill Gates' foundation) treatments for malaria or AIDS in countries with poor economies.
If Congressman Kucinich's proposal became law in the U.S., would the direction of nearly all medical and pharmaceutical research be established by the beliefs of the political party currently in power? Is that "good?"
Or is that “bad?” Congress currently allocates hundreds of billions of dollars of resources. U.S. citizens accept and enable that outcome, so it must be "good." Right?
Who Knows What?
Patent attorneys don't have perfect or complete knowledge of the art they rule. Who does? Those involved in the art submit their knowledge in briefs attached to current patent applications. The USPTO maintains a web site where the application, drawings, and knowledge submitted by supposedly knowledgeable persons are collected (http: //www.priorart.uspto.gov). The process is called a Wiki ("what I know is"). It's no relation to the Hawaiian Wikiwhich means "quick," "fast," or "to hasten."
Who judges the validity of this information, which may have been submitted by a competitor? Is such a submission a "good" or a "bad" action?
If you're not participating or lobbying in this debate, your firm may be blind-sided. Good blogs and web sites on this topic are http://promotetheprogress.com/, http: //weatherall.blogspot.com/, http://patentlaw.typepad. com/patent.
John Durkee is an independent consultant specializing in critical cleaning for contamination control. Author of the forthcoming book Management of Industrial Cleaning Technology and Processes, to be published in 2006 by Elsevier (ISBN 0-0804-48887). Contact him at PO Box 847, Hunt, TX 78024 or 122 Ridge Rd. West,Hunt, TX 78024; 979-417-7707; Fax 612-677-3170; or jdurkee@precisioncleaning.com
