|
|
|
|
|
In This Issue: New Ventures reports SpringMed speeds up success of early stage device firms. One more enemy of modern healthcare — patent law By DON LONG "Just because you had an idea, doesn't mean you own it." So says Obadiah Stang, the de rigueur Superevil guy in the new movie "Iron Man," as he smacks around Tony Stark, man-about-town/billionaire/inventor/entrepreneurial weapons maker turned Superhero. Stark used his technical skills to make himself into this robotic/jet-propelled Iron Man guy. But Stang has co-opted that same technology to build a bigger, badder Ironguy and throws Iron Man around like a rag doll, thereby dramatizing that this technology is no longer just Stark's. Of course (no surprise, given basic comic book superhero protocol), Stark/Iron Man turns the tables and defeats Stang (we didn't understand quite how, but we're not required in a movie) — and probably many more in the likely multiple metallic sequels. But (iron-ically, you might say) Stang is absolutely correct — having an idea doesn't give you ownership of it. An idea is a seed, with little or no similarity to what ultimately grows. Grown and developed, it isn't owned, it's shared — by many. Yes, we know that argument . . . Okay, okay, we know . . . we know that ideas are indeed "owned" — via patents, as "intellectual property." And a patent holder retains ownership over a certain amount of time to reap its benefits. And we're perfectly aware of the common arguments for the patent system: that patents encourage the development of new technologies, that without patent protection no one would bother to turn their ideas into technologies because others would scoop them up and reap the benefits, instead of the inventor. And I would argue that this argument is 1) long out of date, 2) that patents provide profit to some while placing huge cost burdens on many, and 3) that patent law is slowing, even blocking, the development of new technologies — most importantly, in healthcare. It would, of course, be possible to cite, in voluminous chapter and verse, the huge costs of patent fights, especially in the med-tech arena: suits and counter suits filed, interminable battles over which bell or whistle belongs to which developer (attorneys' billable hours piling up, even as I write, and you read, this), these costs passed along, quite naturally, to patients. More seriously — since healthcare costs, no matter how large, seem to get absorbed by someone in what we laughingly refer to as a healthcare "system" — patents provide a variety of pathways, even subterfuges, for not developing a technology. Let's count the ways:
True, patents may have been necessary during the Industrial Revolution, pushing technologies into a public marketplace hardly able to envision any of them, let alone understand them. But it's a whole new world, especially for America, since the issuance of first U.S. patent (1790, for making potash). A whole new timeline But the Industrial Revolution is over, another one under way — the Entrepreneurial Revolution (though probably named after something about computers.) This revolution isn't moving fast — it's moving at light speed. And it isn't being driven by entrepreneurs — it's being driven by Super Entrepreneurs of the Tony Stark variety. It isn't fueled by coal — it's microchip-fueled by Moore's Law concerning what you can put on one of those chips, and an acceleration of knowledge incomprehensible to those of even a generation or two ago. And the ownership of intellectual property means other intellects can't get to it (except by licensing — another cost-prohibitive tactic). The reason has often been stated: the inability of social, political and legal systems to keep pace with technological change, and now falling further and further behind as technology moves off into the distance. In many areas of life, this is no great problem. But in healthcare the result is tragic — the failure of new therapies to get to people who will die at an unnecessarily early age. Clearly, patent law no longer fits the new realities of technological development and entrepreneurship. And some acknowledgement of this is seen in the current effort to revise U.S. patent regulations, an attempt, if achieved, fraught with unintended consequences and whole new oceans of billable hours. I won't describe this effort with the old cliché of rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. It is rearranging the chairs on the deck of an expensive, but sluggish, cruise ship, its luxuries benefitting a very few. Because Stang is right — it's a mistake to think you can own an idea. What did you think of this article? Do you have an opinion you would like to share with us? We would like to hear from you. Please e-mail us at mddperspectives@bioworld.com SpringMed speeds up success of early stage device firms By LYNN YOFFEE WINSTON-SALEM, North Carolina – Moving a unique medical device idea from concept into a commercially viable product, no matter how impressive the technology, can be a daunting road to travel. Oftentimes, it's the regulatory process that presents the greatest hurdles. Click here to read the entire story. |
|
May 28, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
| |||
|
For sponsorship and advertising opportunities, please contact Stephen Vance at stephen.vance@ahcmedia.com or call 800-688-2421 x 5511. Please
We can be reached at:
To see our privacy policy, You are currently subscribed to the MDD Perspectives E-mail List as |
