The gridlock big pharma created for itself

For years the large innovator drug companies have been suing generics manufacturers over patent protection, attempting to block the early entry of generic medicines. Their argument has always centred around the claim that without a strong patent system there would be no incentive for them to continue to invest in ever-costlier new drug development.

It's therefore with great interest today that we read Michael Heller's article in Forbes Magazine in which he argues that not only do patents stifle generics competition & innovation, but that they are now actually harming the large pharma companies themselves. He bases his theory around these simple observations :

a) Biotechnology represents one of the most promising avenues for new drug developmet.

b) Since the US supreme court allowed for patents on living organisms in 1980 over 40'000 have been filed.

c) This staggering number of IP claims on the building blocks of life are making it impossible for researchers, be they academic or from big pharma, to conduct any meaningful work without bumping into a mine-field of these biotech patents.

He notes that some pharma companies have given up entirely on promising leads because they realized how difficult it would be to get the necessary patent licences.

So has big pharma now outwitted itself in its zealous quest for strict patent protection? In any case a very interesting take on another angle of this multi-faceted debate.