User:Geo Swan/opinions/Remembering why we protect intellectual property

I am frustrated by some discussions of intellectual property rights where some participants forget why we protect intellectual property.

We grant creators copyright protection and patent protection, allowing them the right to exclusively exploit whatever economic benefits can be derived from their creations for a reason. At base doing so is supposed to be in the public interest.

There are times when protecting intellectual property is NOT in the public interest. Let me offer an example.

About five years ago a new disease emerged -- SARS. It struck in the Far East, and there was a cluster of patients in Toronto. Hundreds were ill. Dozens died.

There was one little used drug which was believed to be useful against this disease. This drug was new enough it was still protected by patents. Allan Rock, Canada's Minister of Health, promptly contacted the pharmaceutical company that had the liscense to manufacture and distribute this drug, and asked them to name a price for, IIRC 100,000 doses. Most of these doses were intended to preventatively treat the front-line health care workers -- so they wouldn't pass on the disease to other patients.

Rock, the Minister of Health, was told that the pharmaceutical company couldn't deliver those drugs -- or anywhere near.

So he contacted some pharmaceutical companies in Canada, and asked them how long it would take them to set up a production line, and deliver the drugs, if they were given an emergency authorization because the company which owned the intellectual property rights claimed they couldn't deliver the drugs.

A couple of days later the multinational squawked. It complained that the Minister breaching their intellectual property rights.

So far as I am concerned their claim was bogus.

They are granter IP rights because that is supposed to be in the public interest. Failing to be prepared to deliver the drugs, in an emergency, was not in the public interest.

Note: the greedy drug company had not said, "we will sell you our existing stocks -- but charge an emergency surcharge." They had not said, "we lack the capacity, so we can subliscense our competitors to manufacture our drugs -- but we want a cut of their sales of this drug."

They simply said "no."

This drug company forgot why we grant them the exclusive right of manufacture -- because it is supposed to serve the public interest.

Why didn't the drug company want to sell its existing stocks to the Canadian government? It seems they wanted to reserve its stock for the USA -- even though the USA had no deaths, and only five percent as many cases. Geo Swan (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)