3 ms·
> Companies would (justifiably) still want provisional patent protection for the very long period between the idea's conception and FDA approval I disagree. Fo
by mcherm 12y ago
> Companies would (justifiably) still want provisional patent protection for the very long period between the idea's conception and FDA approval
I disagree. For drugs this wouldn't be a problem.
The company that invented it is forbidden from making money off a drug that is not approved, so they have every incentive to get the approval as soon as possible.
Other companies would not be prevented by patent law from producing the drug during the time, but they would be prevented by FDA regulation. And they would not be inclined to invest since they would know that the patent would issue as soon as the drug was approved.
- xaa 12y agoWell, the international enforceability of US patents is already sketchy at best, and if the phamaceutical doesn't even have a patent at all, there's absolutely nothing stopping a company from producing and selling it in a country that doesn't have standards quite as tight as the FDA. Also, your comment > The company that invented it is forbidden from making money off a drug that is not approved raises another interesting issue. In the current system, a company CAN in fact make money off of such a drug, by selling the patent to someone else. Actually, many drug patents originate in universities, and then are sold to drug companies. I doubt the university lobby would be keen on losing that major revenue stream.