 | The examples and perspective in this articlemay not represent aworldwide view of the subject. You mayimprove this article, discuss the issue on thetalk page, orcreate a new article, as appropriate.(May 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | Theneutrality of this article isdisputed. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please do not remove this message untilconditions to do so are met.(March 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Someeconomists have proposed replacingpatents in some markets with aninnovation prize model, which would useinducement prizes rather than temporary monopolies to rewardresearch and development effort.
Patents provide a temporarymonopoly on a product to the first inventor or firm that comes up with the product. Patents vary in length but are designed to last long enough for the innovator to make a return on investment. The nature of patents makes them an incentive so long as the product being invented is distributed to consumers through markets. While patented products are in the market, the producer can place any price on the product, regardless of the price of production which typically dictates prices in markets. If a product is not being distributed through markets then a patent cannot provide proper incentive for innovation. Patents do however provide gain through the restriction of information to others.Stiglitz identifies this as a problem of patents for the innovation of drugs and other products being distributed not with the purpose of making aprofit, but to solve global problems.
Offering a prize as opposed to a patent, according to Stiglitz, would address the lack of incentive for problems such as disease in developing countries, and it would provide products immediately affordable instead of pending a patent expiration. Awarding prizes offers a fixed amount appropriate for reimbursing research into drugs. Today, many drug companies spend much of the money earned through patents on marketing and advertising as opposed to the research for the actual drugs.[1]
Stiglitz goes on to assert that untilgeneric versions of drugs reach the shelves, which occurs after a patent expires, the costs burden consumers due to prices not being dictated by the markets.[2] These burdens are overwhelming in developing countries, and Stiglitz suggests they be lowered by offering prizes instead of patents. Stiglitz discusses the idea of usingforeign aid assistance funds to finance prizes, as it would provide greater foreign aid than what funds are being used for currently.[3]
SenatorBernie Sanders of Vermont put forward legislation in theUnited States Senate in 2005 and 2007 under H.R. 417 and S.2210.[4] Sanders has been a longtime proponent of Stiglitz’s ideas and favors a system of incentives for innovation in medicine and pharmaceuticals over a system of patents, which he asserts grants company monopolies on drugs and drives up pharmaceutical prices.
The two bills proposed on May 26, 2011, by Senator Bernie Sanders would completely remove legal barriers to the manufacture and sale of generic drugs. The bills will give the government the right to set specific goals and direct research to certain areas of medicine. S1137 would apply to all prescription drugs, and S1138 is focused on HIV/AIDS medications. The bills call for both the government and private insurance companies to fund the "Medical Innovation Prize Fund." According to the S1137 bill, the innovation fund would create a fund of .55% of GDP, $80 billion of GDP based on 2010 numbers. S1138 calls for a .02% GDP fund for HIV/AIDS innovation prizes that amounts to about $3 billion a year.[5]
In a statement made at a subcommittee meeting, Senator Sanders said, "It simply blew me away and would blow anyone’s mind—that one drug, Atripla, costs $25,000 per year." He called this bill “fairly radical for the U.S. Congress.” According to estimates, proponents of the bill believe that the costs of the prizes would be offset by the introduction of generic drugs and the reduction of monopoly power in the pharmaceutical industry. Sanders believes that these bills will save private insurers, Medicaid, and other government assistance programs money.[6]
One of the goals of the bill is to "de-link research and development incentives from product prices," along with getting rid of patents and what the bill's author asserts to be monopoly power. It aims to free research and development by proposing a possible "Open Source Dividend" element. This means that a percentage of the prize money from the innovation funds would go to those persons or communities that allow access to knowledge, data, etc. to public domains and offer free access to patents.
Senator Sanders and other proponents of both bills[who?] assert that the prize funds will give incentives for manufacturers to seek innovative treatments for illnesses and diseases that are more important to society. In addition, they state that these funds will lower drug prices, along with what they claim to be wasteful research and development costs.[5] This bill has been favored by Joseph Stiglitz.[7]
TheBill & Melinda Gates Foundation has tried such a prize fund model. In its model, all applicants for funding from the Gates Foundation must waive all claims to patents. “AWorld Health Organization (WHO) report, called 'Research and Development to Meet health Needs in Developing Countries,' backs prize funds, saying it is a financially viable model”[8]
In 2012 the two bills were referred to the committee level in the Senate. They have not been put to a vote in either the Senate or the House. In 2009-2010 only 3% of all bills proposed in the Senate were enacted.[9]
US PresidentBarack Obama has pushed for prizes for innovation, sponsoring 150 contests across 40 agencies in 2010.[10]NASA paid out $6 million in prizes to companies since 2005 for innovation.[11] Between 2000 and 2007 certain groups put $250 million into technologies that range from robotic arms to tuberculosis tests, according to Brian Vastag of TheWashington Post.[6]
According to theGlobal Intellectual Property Center, studies show that prizes are better at proving a concept than bringing concrete, useful technologies into existence.[12] Another criticism made by the Global Intellectual Property Center is that prizes will never be enough to reward lucky breaks that have brought about the most important innovations.[13] Also, the center argues that prizes do not create incentives to drive a continuous cycle of advances and improvements because prizes are finite and limited.[12]
The Global Intellectual Property Center also believes that prizes focus narrowly on certain acts or on the "next new thing," and that prizes can act as distractions from more significant innovations.[12] They also assert that prizes do not hold researchers and inventors accountable for the findings of works or creations.[12] The center argues that prizes in turn give rights to a product to a government, who then gives rights to the entire public. In the future, if there are any problems or questions with the creation or drug, it will be impossible to determine who is responsible for the flaw.[12]
.svg)
