Draw Down Patent Monopoly Period

Conventional wisdom justifies the retention of patent protection for pharmaceuticals on the assumption that corporations undertake expensive and high-risk research that should be rewarded by a monopoly to allow for recouping of investment together with a decent return. This view states that in the absence of the 20 year monopoly duration would lead to a reduction in the investment in discovery of new drugs.

Apart from the thinking that the patent period is often arbitrarily decided upon, i have recently become a deep skeptic of this argument. Here's an interesting article in the NYT by Stephanie Saul covering the rising demand for generic drugs following the expiry of the patent period. The piece claims that the monopoly period for a number of blockbuster drugs will lapse in a short while and yet there is no evidence of a new generation of equally useful drugs.

It begs the question whether the monopoly period did not lead to new research and production as is often argued. Industry speakers quoted in the article suggest that the set of diseases now being subjected to research are not as easily amenable to discovery because of the scientific gaps in knowledge about them. That may be true as well but it merely confirms the fact that the monopoly period of 20 years for pharmaceuticals provides no guarantees that drugs will be produced. Instead, it states that pharmaceutical production and research policy should be guided by the intention to make as many drugs as possible available in generic form. Perhaps the place to start is to review patent policy by a drastic reduction of the patent monopoly period.