Mike at Techdirt (link here) has a good piece on David Levine and Michele Boldrin's book Against Intellectual Monopoly (available on line here), focusing on the chapter on pharmaceuticals. I've been looking for a way to again highlight the book for this blogs readers. Chapter 9, to quote Mike, “completely destroys the idea that without pharma patents, there can be no pharmaceutical industry, by pointing to other countries that had no patent protection over pharmaceuticals until recently -- but still had absolutely thriving pharma industries. In other words, patents aren't needed for a pharmaceutical industry. However, if the patent system does recognize pharmaceuticals, are those patents really beneficial? Again, Levine's book hacks away at that notion, pointing out that, as with any government-granted monopoly, rather than creating real incentives for innovation, the patent system has created a situation where rent seeking occurs.”

Mike goes on to reference the publication of a GAO report downloadable as a PDF from his site, that concludes “there is a worrying trend in fewer new and innovative drugs being created, and also sees evidence that pharmaceutical companies are playing games to expand monopoly protections. It does note that many are concerned that patents are the cause of this, though it's clear that there are many factors playing into it.”

The comments on this post are worth reading as well–-lots of controversy.

If only someone would invent a technology that enabled people to put links in articles - I wonder if they should be granted a patent?

One might imagine that I could simply write the reference to a document here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061221/125146.shtml

And it would automatically be conveted to a link like this: More People Recognizing Patents Might Not Help In Healthcare.

Did Vannevar Bush need patents to write "As we may think"?