Patent & Science -- Plus & Minus

I'm responsible for a blog called Science Patenting Nexus Explored. You may wonder if the science patenting nexus explored there includes the idea that patenting has a negative effect on science. So, here's my view of this:

I know that research universities are happy to patent inventions made on their turf and hope thereby to get royalty income to support the university. And, I know that patented research tools and materials can drive up research costs and limit research. How to I resolve this?

Let's start with the US Constitution which says that "Congress shall have the power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their writings and Discoveries." This is the basis of the patent right.

Notice that the Constitution does not mention huge drug companies nor software giants nor research universities nor makers of research tools and materials -- it refers only to inventors and authors.

I know that only if a business can expect get a return on investment will it invest in bringing a product to market. I've seen first hand the truth that patenting can be essential for getting a return on investment, for the invention to be made and sold and used at all.

Patenting which is tightly focused on this goal, for me, makes economic and moral sense. I only work for inventors and businesses using patenting this way and I discount fees when an invention can improve things like health, education, and research.

When the investment needed to bring a product to market is minimal, is a patent right needed? I do fully support the goals and principles of the open source movement and do preferentially use open source software. Here obtaining a patent right can be an important tool to make sure that open source principles and goals are respected. So here again for me patenting makes moral and economic sense.

There are also situations where concern about intellectual property rights trumps data sharing. Progress of science -- and public health -- depends on quick and full sharing of information. Good patenting practice can improve information sharing.

However, when patent rights are used by big corporations – huge drug companies, software giants, makers of research tools and materials, etc. – to drive income and profits far beyond what is needed to make and sell useful products, then the cost of products can retard health and education and research and progress of science.

This certainly does not "promote the general welfare" which is the starting, and ultimate, point of our Constitution. I do think that this is morally and economically wrong but know that not much will happen to change this until public policy makers forgo contributions from these corporations and their agents.

Don Moyer