25 Mar 2003
Patent Tweaking

This article points up some of the current absurdities of the patent process regarding drugs.

Apparently Celebrex was developed from basic research performed at the University of Rochester in the early 1990's. A Federal judge invalidated the patent on the grounds that it was not developed as a "complete invention" and sent the case back to an appeals court.

Allowing the university patent to stand would have put a nearly insurmountable barrier in the way of companies wishing to utilize basic research supported by our universities and other institutions of higher learning. However ....

Celebrex itself is patented, even though it was based on this earlier basic research, some of which was, presumably, funded by all of us through our tax dollars. This is as bogus as granting a patent on the basic research itself, for while Pharmacia can claim to have fleshed out the basic research into a commercial product, the patent they claim on Celebrex covers the basic mechanism itself.

In a nutshell, this illustrates the complexities inherent in IP law in this modern age of genetic engineering, digital data and taxpayer funded basic research. I believe that the most equitable solution would be to insure that all research funded in any part by the government fall into the prohibition on government held patents and/or copyrights. Otherwise, the people end up paying twice (and sometimes, especially in the case of medications, very dearly) for essentially the same product.

00:00 /Copywrongs | 0 comments | permanent link