In Petra Moser’s scholarly essay titled How do Patent Laws Influence Innovation, she supports the claim that from a government’s perspective, innovation is essential to the study of patent law (Moser, 2005, pp. 7). With the government’s support of patents, it is likely to see that countries with strict laws enforced, great innovations are to be created. With that being said, Moser argues that countries under the pursuit of patent laws are engaging in a tradeoff between patenting and secrecy (2005, pp. 13). This claim supports another strength of patent law that states in industries where patenting is effective, payoffs from secrecy do not exceed payoffs from patenting, thus, further encouraging innovation. Parallel to the above view, the argument against patent law in contemporary society is that laws are based off homoeconomicus, proving to be a weakness in patent law. Patents can help a company grow through capitalization of market failures, however, this can be deemed as unethical. It can be argued that patents serve the rich as profits are generated through the exploitation of developing countries, …show more content…
For example, patent law incentivizes medical research development of HIV if large corporations can purchase the medicine and have high profit return. In Patents and Human Rights, Richard Gold illustrates an unharmonious relationship between patents and human rights as the structure and manipulation of patent law negatively impacts public health concerns (Gold, 2013, pp. 186). While the end goal may be met which includes extensive research and new medicines, the weakness lies at the focus of moral and ethical issues. The patent system fails to motivate research development to combat the disease of HIV, which tragically targets the global
(7) Hall B. Patents and Patent Policy -. 2007. The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the Morse H. SETTLEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRIES: ANTITRUST RULES. Allison JR, Lemley MA, Moore KA, Trunkey RD. Valuable patents. Geol.
The Right to Privacy by Robert Bork. Robert Bork's The Right to Privacy examined the landmark case Griswald v. Connecticut. Bork's "originalist" view proclaimed that Justice Douglas erroneously interpreted the right to privacy from the Constitution. The originalist view is that judges must strictly adhere to the language of the Constitution, thus people do not have a general right to privacy because it was never actually written into the Constitution. This view severely restricts judges in dealing with new issues that our forefathers could not have possibly envisioned.
Henrietta Lacks was a poor black women who was misdiagnosed with cervical cancer but died because of adenocarcinoma, which is a cancerous type of tumor that can be found in various parts of the body. Unlike other cells, Henrietta's cells had unique quality of surviving for a long amount of period. This unique quality led to the invention of HeLa cell line. This cell line helped diagnose many diseases that did not have a cure. However, there is an ethical concern with this case. The ethical concern is this case is whether it is ethical for corporations to patent and profit from the development or sale of human genetic material. In this case, I believe it is unethical for corporations to profit from the development or sale of human genetic material
Lehman, Bruce. 2003. “The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Patent System”. International Intellectual Property Institute. Pages 1-14.
Pharmaceuticals are arguably one of the most contentious of all goods and services traded in the market. While medicines are as much a necessity as foods and water, they require more technical expertise and official approbation in the manufacture. Above all, they carry a moral weight that most market products do not (The Economist, 2014). This idea of moral can be linked to the recurring debate over whether a good health (which is represented by medicines, in this case) should be considered a basic human right, or just a normal commodity. A large portion of such controversy actually lies in an existence of drug patents: should we promote for longer-lasting patents or should we have their duration shortened?
AIDS is slowly becoming the number one killer across the globe. Throughout numerous small countries, AIDS has destroyed lives, taken away mothers, and has left hopeless children as orphans. The problem remains that funding for the diseases’ medical research is limited to none. In the country Brazil, HIV/AIDS has been compared to the bubonic plague, one of the oldest yet, most deadly diseases to spread rapidly across Europe (Fiedler 524). Due to this issue, Brazil’s government has promised that everyone who has been diagnosed with either HIV or AIDS will receive free treatment; however, this treatment does not include help in purchasing HIV medications, that “carry astronomical price tags” (Fiedler 525). Generic drug companies have been able to produce effective HIV medications that are not as costly if compared to the prices given by the huge pharmaceutical companies. In contrast, the U.S. government has now intervened with these generic companies hindering them from making HIV medications, which may not be as efficient if made by the pharmaceutical companies. Not only are these drug companies losing thousands of dollars against generic drug companies, but also tremendous profit that is demanded for marketing these expensive drugs as well. “How many people must die without treatment until the companies are willing to lower their prices, or to surrender their patients so generic makers can enter market? (Fiedler 525).” With this question in mind, what ways can we eliminate the HIV/AIDS epidemic across the world? With research, education, testing, and funding we can prevent the spread of HIV to others and hopefully find a cure.
“If you patent a discovery which is unique, say a human gene or even just one particular function of a human gene, then you are actually creating a monopoly, and that's not the purpose of the world of patents” (John Sulston). The articles “Patenting Life” by Michael Crichton, and “Decoding The Use of Gene Patents” written by John E. Calfee talk about the patenting of genes. Crichton and Calfee both discuss the different views on gene patenting. Crichtons position is against gene patents, while Calfee feels gene patents are beneficiary. Furthermore, the authors disagree with their views of gene patents. They have different views about the cost of the gene patent tests, the privacy of a person’s genes, and research of gene patenting.
Henrietta Lacks, a young black woman suffering from cervical cancer, has and continues to contribute greatly to the advancement of science unbeknownst to her and her family. This young woman has played a crucial role in developing the polio vaccine, cloning, gene mapping and in vitro fertilization (Zielinski, 2010). “Protecting human dignity and preventing exploitation are core concepts in both bioethics and human rights” (Marouf & Esplin, 2015). These core concepts were not upheld in 1951 when a Johns Hopkins scientist took a tissue sample from a young woman dying from cervical cancer (Zielinski, 2010). This scientist violated two major concepts in this particular case: informed consent and privacy and autonomy.
The pharmaceutical and biotech industries must be free to develop and research life saving medicines and other advancements that will benefit society. If this cannot be done, progress would never be made. People would still be contracting polio a...
It is the profits rather than the need of the world that drives the market, as Cahill points out. She laments that while in the 1960-1970 's theologic bioethicists influenced the field of bioethics, nowadays the ethical discourse involving Christian narrative gets" thinner and thinner," shifting away toward more secular and liberal views. As theologians are welcomed to partake in the ethical debates, their voices and opinions are rarely considered in policy making. Such situation causes the current trend amongst health care institutions,medical-surgical companies, and research labs, to focus on financial gain rather than ways to deliver health care to those who needed it the most. It is the consumers with the most "buying power" that have at their disposal the latest medical treatment, equipment, technologies, and medications while millions around the world lack the most basics of needs, such as clean water, food, shelter, education as well as the basic health care. Cahill fears that medical companies seeking profits will neglect or stop altogether to produce medications that are bringing low profits. Medications that are necessary to treat prevalent in the third- world countries or if you prefer the developing countries diseases, such as Dysentery, Cholera, Malaria, Rabies, Typhoid Fever, Yellow Fever, even warms, to name a
The law of competition brings the best out of people to strive for greatness and contribute to not only the economy, but to themselves. Wealth is only achieved through great knowledge and proving oneself to be the best in any given situation or their respective career field. Knowledge is the ultimate factor pertaining to the law of competition and it is for an individual's best interest to obtain great knowledge. According to Carnegie a disadvantage under the law of competition is that there will always be friction between a boss and the employee’s, capital and labor. Also, human society loses its ability to be in a homogeneous
Competition law in the European Union has developed from being an uncertain preoccupation of a few economists, lawyers and officials to one of the leading competition law system in the globe. Nonetheless, in agreement with most commentators, there are inherent flaws within the EU Commission’s procedures. This paper aims to provide an account of concerns in the current system, drawing comments from scholars and EU officials in order to demonstrate both benefits and shortcomings of the system. An overview of the legal and policy debate of the current EU Competition enforcement will be presented as the introduction. Policy concerns such as prosecutorial bias and self-incrimination in enforcement powers will be the main subjects for the purpose of this paper, followed by analysis of the EU commission structure, in particular checks and balances and the hearing process, both of which have been claimed being incompatible with the ECHR. A comparison with the US Antitrust system will also be paralleled through out this essay in order to demonstrate a clearer examination. This essay will conclude with the Commission’s flaws that have effected on the upcoming UK competition law reforms.
The system that is in motion at present between the big pharmaceutical companies, the generics industry and the WHO seems to be working efficiently. Some may complain that the pharmaceutical companies are creating too big a monopoly and are greedy, but without them discovery of new medicines wouldn’t happen. Patents have thus far ensured that inventors and researchers reap economic rewards for their work, and new treatments and new medicines are made available on a regular basis. Essentially, without patents there would be no innovation and discovery of new medicines. And without that, we would be no better off than we are now.
Patents claims focus of the mechanism, principles and components surrounding those ideas. Patents are the strongest of the law to protect the intellectual property. Patent law is based on a very strict liability standard, making a business owner’s strongest option for intellectual property protection. Patents often make use of reverse engineering. Through reverse engineering, they see if patented inventions are in used by another company. Patents have an expiration date; the design patent protect design, shape, configuration and appearance of any invention for 14 years, and utility patents that protect functional makeover and new invention last for 20