Whilst the protection of intellectual property is without a doubt one that states ought to respect it must, like any other state afforded right, operate a sliding scale rather than being an absolute right. The problem comes when the decision is made to make such a law absolute in its protection without due consideration to other potential factors. In the case of crucial technologies it is abundantly clear that the creation of monopolistic factors is an active decision to excessively profit from the misfortune of others and whilst this may be a crucial tenet of the religion that is capitalism, the state has a duty to separate itself from this particular church. Furthermore, it could be claimed that it was through the hard work of the state in the creation of infrastructure such as roads and the provision of education that you were able to create a good in the first place and therefore do not hold any sort of divine right over what has been created. This is even more the case when we turn to the Stanford University patent administration office, which loans out the rights to use patents to patent trolls that then use afore mentioned patents to terrorise genuine business owners. There were a plethora of variables other than the inventor herself that played a role in the acquisition of a patent, and in the case of crucial technology they needn't hold such inordinate control. The final and most crucial element is that of time. With the creation of new and more efficient photovoltaic cells, paired with the irreversible nature of climate change, we do not have time to wait for the patent to expire before we are able to bring goods to the open market and given the often tedious and bureaucratic nature of even passing a patent, the less time we waste, arguably, the better. Perhaps a far better mechanism would be to offer a one-time stipend rather than continued control over an extended period of time, furthermore, a decision not to grant a patent wouldn't eliminate the structural advantage that a company line Hoover had when they invented the vacuum cleaner but would instead only hasten the approach of Dyson to take its place. In the case of life saving medicines the use of patents is particularly problematic given that it offers the ability to charge incredibly high prices without any possible substitutes. Furthermore given the nature of medical advancements often, the discovery of one compound can be put to a wide range of uses, but with a patent in place that is restricted to only the applications undertaken by the patent holders. In the case of GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer it means that large corporations can rapidly monopolise because in order for other companies to make their products they have to pay for copious licensing agreements which decreases their profit margins and therefore the amount of money they have to fund research and development themselves. Realistically, the democratisation of access to newly invented medicines would not pose too significant a threat to profit margins, as much of it will be likely recuperated through tax dodging and mergers c.f. Pfizer/Allergan attempted merger. We know this because the market for illicitly created drugs in nations like India continue to expand year on year. Interestingly enough, in recognition of this fact GlaxoSmithKline in an attempted PR move decided to waive their patent applications in developing countries, a fantastic step forwards, but realistically nothing more than a glorified recognition of the inevitable. Whilst progress has been made on this frontier, we still live in a world where Martin Shreleki can continue to extort those desperate for HIV treatment with 500% increases in the price of medication. We describe the perfect market as one in which homogenous products are offered, but the existence of patents and the ability to drive down prices via the introduction of new firms is lost when there are extensive barriers to entry posed to those applicants. Most perverse is the fear of attempts at innovation by small scale inventors on the basis that they know they would have insufficient funds to fight off exorbitant legal cases launched by the likes of patent trolls. This loss of attempted innovation stifles increases in general utility and is not worth the sacrifice of such a crucial good. This is a problem that isn’t unique to the patent industry but also extends to the market for the creation of green technologies. Isn’t it rather telling that one of the greatest holders of green technology patents is the government of Saudi Arabia, followed only by the likes of BP and Shell? Now if we were to extend the benefit of the doubt then we could say that these corporations and entities are fulfilling a crucial service in their research and innovation, a responsibility that governments have thus far reneged upon. This is because climate change is by
31
Made with FlippingBook Annual report