tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685065582281848343.post9162544095340667269..comments2023-09-28T03:28:17.063-04:00Comments on 3 Ring Binder: Retarding InnovationLynnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12178771612031280593noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685065582281848343.post-56273831790115699952011-09-22T10:10:11.443-04:002011-09-22T10:10:11.443-04:00I agree, though I will stick to the point that tho...I agree, though I will stick to the point that those 20 years for patent protection are just as arbitrary (why not 21?). It’s based on the pragmatic argument that promoting innovation is the function of patents rather protecting property.<br /><br />For example, how many people would put down money to buy a house, if squatters were allowed to invade their home after their twenty years protection was up.<br /><br />If someone has a good principled argument for not extending patents over the entire life of the inventor, I would like to hear it.Steve Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685065582281848343.post-45618341629722726242011-09-21T16:21:35.984-04:002011-09-21T16:21:35.984-04:00You ask excellent questions that I cannot answer. ...You ask excellent questions that I cannot answer. I read somewhere in my research that the biologically-derived drugs were not being picked up after their protection had ended (sadly, did not have the reference handy to share). But I do know that passing a law one year offering 12 years of protection (hard won by the drug developers) then trying to rewrite it within a year of that agreement has got to increase the instability of that entire market. I also know that while the government has an important role to play in protecting the innovators' rights, it is not by arbitrarily determining and re-evaluating <i>how much is enough</i> for them.Lynnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12178771612031280593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-685065582281848343.post-12087457783475341922011-09-21T15:41:59.902-04:002011-09-21T15:41:59.902-04:00On the other hand, this protection is in addition ...On the other hand, this protection is in addition to the 20 years allowed by the patent. It stands to reason that this issue could easily be solved by just extending patent protection for all inventions.<br /><br />Because biologics are more difficult or expensive to make they should have more protection? No, all inventions should be protected equally.<br /><br />I've never understood the twenty year patent law - what makes twenty years so special? Ownership of any invention should extend at least for the inventors lifetime.Steve Dnoreply@blogger.com