One useful feature of an IP right is to provide a competitive advantage of business activities for its holder through prevention of unlicensed exploitation by new traders. The privilege gives the owner a powerful weapon to compete with many superior organizations (Sathwara & Bhandari, 2016). The second positive characteristic of an IP right is the guarantee of product quality and safety. Fake medicines place the health of people at risk. Implementation of the copyrights to drugs certifies the originality and identification of the product (Bose, 2017). However, counterfeit goods usually violate the safety standards, in particular, for trademarks. Patent license agreements may also include quality guarantee clauses. The third useful aspect of an IP right is the promotion of indirect exploitation. When an organization owns rights over its products, it gains proceeds from both the direct utilization by another company and from indirect use by third parties, under license agreements (Kesselheim et al., 2016). The extra indirect revenue at times surpasses the income generated from the direct use.
The other forth benefit derived from IP right on drugs is minimal costs on mechanisms. Even though registration for IP rights on specific procedures is expensive, certain rights are attainable without any formal process and at no fee (CNBC Television, 2019). An example is in the case of unregistered designs and copyright. Another helpful feature is the spread of technical knowledge. Where an organization does not intend to safeguard its discoveries, its employees can utilize the copyright information (Sathwara & Bhandari, 2016). Patents are supreme in terms of productivity and updated source of technological information. The rights have detailed technical knowledge that is untraceable anywhere else. Eight percent of up-to-date technical information is only traceable in patent documents.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the negative issues of IP rights is the evergreen approach from medicine manufacturers. Eighty percent of the top sellers extend the patent for their drugs with the intention of prolonged exclusivity duration before generics penetrate the market as the cost of medicine rises (Sathwara & Bhandari, 2016). An example is the Revlimid, a cancer drug which costs $125,000 for one year of medication. Celgene has 105 patents on Revlimid which gives the drug monopoly until 2036. As a result, the market will block generic competitors for forty years. However, the copyrights owned by Celgene are minor extras and less innovative. Due to the patents related to Revlimid, buyers project to spend $45 billion extra as compared to generic competitors if the first patent was to expire in 2019 (Kesselheim et al., 2016). The absence of genuine competition in the pharmaceutical market leads to monopolies reckless valuation of drugs for people who rely on medication.
Intellectual property in the drug industry leads to a few affordable solutions. Patients lack indications that are affordable and helpful (Sathwara & Bhandari, 2016). The medicine production needs real competition to enhance health outcome instead of blockage of incentives for new drug inventions. The intellectual property system needs a modification to curb the abuse that exists in the pharmaceutical market. One way is to promote a reasonable patent policy in health care that fosters the diffusion of ideas and at the same time, supports the advancement of innovative products.
Over the years, the drug industry has encountered a craze of new idea and technology patent. As a result, the drugs are less effective, and their cost is high for the affordability of patients. Although intellectual property safeguards the rights of inventors, specific critical knowledge should exclude from the patent system. Life-saver inventions should be under the category of un-patentable and distinct from other types of discoveries. The patent bodies should give priority to the rights of people to life-saver medications. The motivation for the expansion of such technology will evaluate the number of lives saved rather than the profits generated. The incentive will lead to regulations both in the US and other countries that deter the monopoly on drug production and trade.
References
Bose, S. (2017, August 29). The high cost of prescription drugs in the United States. Retrieved September 3, 2019, from HuffPost: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-high-cost-of-prescription-drugs-in-the-united-states_b_59a606aae4b0d81379a81c1f
CNBC Television. (2019, May 7). Senate judiciary committee holds a hearing on prescription drug prices- May 7, 2019 . Retrieved September 3, 2019, from CNBC Television-You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6pHAyq3Vvs
Kesselheim, A. S., Avorn, J., & Sarpatwari, A. (2016). The high cost of prescription drugs in the United States: Origins and prospects for reform. Clinical Review and Education , 858-872.
Sathwara JA, Bhandari AM (2016); Drugs and Intellectual Property Rights: positive and negative aspects; PharmaTutor; 4(12); 29-32
