UNIVERSITY
Many universities develop the beginning of a new product but very few make it to market. Look at the number of “products” owned by universities and then look at the number of “products” owned by start-up companies. Without patents there would be no venture capital, without venture capital there would be no start-ups, without start-ups there would be no new products.

BIG PHARMA
The current business model for major pharmaceuticals is to fund some university research, let a start-up do phase I and phase II testing, then purchase the start-up once a sellable product has been developed/approved.

Anti-patent and anti-genetic sentiment has a lot of emotional appeal but very little basis in fact. The fact is that all new medicines whether initiated at a university or small company, were produced and developed to product because of the patents. There would be no Phase I or Phase II research without patent protection. The Bayh-Dole act was created because university research didn’t lead to FDA approved products without patent protection. Look at all of the homeopathic treatments that have not gotten approval becuase there is absolutely NO patent incentive invest in testing.

CONCLUSION
Patents are required to produce FDA approved medicine. Without patents we would all have equal access to nothing.

UNIVERSITY
Many universities develop the idea of a new product but very few make it to market. Look at the number of “products” owned by universities and then look at the number of “products” owned by start-up companies. Without patents there would be no venture capital, without venture capital there would be no start-ups, without start-ups there would be no new products.

BIG PHARMA
The current business model for major pharmaceuticals is to fund some university research, let a start-up do phase I and phase II testing, then purchase the start-up once a sellable product has been developed/approved.

Anti-patent and anti-genetic sentiment has a lot of emotional appeal but very little basis in fact. The fact is that all new medicines whether initiated at a university or small company, were produced and developed to product because of patents. There would be no Phase I or Phase II research without patent protection. The reason for Bayh-Dole is because university research in the past did not lead to viable products without guaranteed patent protection. Look at all of the homeopathic treatments that have not gotten approval becuase there is absolutely NO patent incentive invest in testing.

CONCLUSION
Patents are absolutely required to produce FDA approved medicines.

A complimentary article can be found at:
http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/10/09/nih-shocked-to-find-patents-work-as-expected/

I especially don’t think there shouldn’t even be any controversy over whether patents impede access. Hasn’t that always been obvious? It creates a monopoly, which means the market forces that keep prices down are removed, prices are higher than they otherwise would be, and fewer people can afford the products. Isn’t that what all of the people against pharma patents say all the time? Aren’t patented drugs always more expensive than generics and therefore affordable for fewer people?

My impression was that you agreed that this is true, but thought pricing some people out of the market for a time was worth it, because we otherwise wouldn’t get the inventions in the first place. Am I wrong about that?

We are never going to agree. I will just point out that the report does not say what you say it says, and if and when HHS ever decided to make this report public (which they are refusing to do… I wonder why?) everyone will see that the report is internally inconsistent throughout. You simply cannot conclude that patents do not impede access – therefore patents impede access.

-Gene

You missed “For the most part” in your last quote, which is significant.

Regardless, the point is that the report found that some people, who would otherwise be able to receive the treatments, are not able to, exactly and specifically because of exclusive providers. You say they wouldn’t have access anyway, but that is in direct contradiction to the claims of the report: “access to genetic tests has been impeded [...] when these tests are offered by an exclusive provider or a limited number of providers.” The report states that it’s the exclusivity impedes access.

I’m not sure why you keep insisting that exclusivity isn’t restricting access. Are you suggesting the writers of the report made it up? Or are you saying the explanation doesn’t match the data?

The section I quote quite clearly concludes:

“patents covering genetic tests and related licensing practices do not appear to be causing wide or lasting barriers to patient access.”

A single provider has nothing to do with denying access. When there is a single provider of a test appropriate specimen’s are collected and sent to the provider, who conducts the test and returns the results. So it is simply inaccurate to say that a patent has anything to do with access even in a single provider situation. The ACLU didn’t even allege that in their frivolous lawsuit. They want another provider to be able to conduct the test again to confirm results. So it boils down to access being denied to indigent people who couldn’t otherwise afford the test even if there were multiple providers.

-Gene