Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Pharmaceutical Patents

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.

Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.

current posts | more recent posts



It's important to distinguish between patent-infringement and trademark-infringement, as well as misrepresentation.

My understanding of the measures reported on in the Wash Po is that they're aimed at *fake* medicines; that is products with faked trademarks, or produced by fraudsters culpable of misrepresentation (eg. by producing a drug which is not what it claims to be - many fakes, for example, are simply placebos).

I do not believe they are seizing and holding or destroying generic drugs which do not commit any of the other offences.

Whatever you views on patents (which are fairly obvious from the list on the left), I think this is an unrelated issue.


But then you would have depraved...oops, deprived...John Bennett of a good rant about intellectual property, even if the intellectual property is trademarks, originally intended to prevent unfair competition and sometimes intended to prevent consumer confusion. But, hey, an intellectual property destructionist will rant with minimal motivation, so it is unlikely that actual facts will slow them down.

I'm afraid John B. and Julian are both right. In the former's defense, I've read a number of stories lately (though admittedly not the Wash Po article) on Customs seizures of generics based on patent infringement allegations. There's especially been quite a bit of chatter about this on the Indian blogs; many of the generics seized are from India, and get intercepted at European ports. This confiscation policy was originally intended to stem the flow of illegal drugs. But now the major pharmas and their cohorts are allegedly using the system as a method of patent enforcement.
Thanks for the comments, Anon and Gena. On the latter point, the patent seizures do raise an interesting issue - and I can certainly understand the argument that one jurisdiction shouldn't be able to impose laws on other countries where those laws do not apply. As I'm not an IP lawyer I'm unsure what the precendents are here, but I'd imagine this is unusual--and also counterproductive, as it'll just drive producers to use freer ports instead.

However, according to EU customs reports, 93% of seizures last year were for trademark infringement, NOT patent infringement (which only accounted for 6%). So it seems as if the main tale of EU seizures is being ignored, with the patent seizures hyped up somewhat.

current posts | more recent posts

Submit Comment

Blog Post


Email (optional):

Your Humanity:

Prove you are human by retyping the anti-spam code.
For example if the code is unodosthreefour,
type 1234 in the textbox below.

Anti-spam Code



Most Recent Comments

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime It is one of the finest websites I have stumbled upon. It is not only well developed, but has good

Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry

Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default

Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without

Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do

Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous

Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,

What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic

Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the

Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples

Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you

Bonfire of the Missalettes!

Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since