Intellectual impropriety: The left gets confused on copyrights and patents

Union Leader ^ | May 5 2002

[2Trievers]

DEMOCRATS running for the U.S. House and Senate this year have latched onto the issue of prescription drug prices like ticks on a bloodhound. If they aren't careful, their reckless feeding frenzy could seriously damage one of their most solid constituencies — artists.

The Democratic argument boils down to this: large, greedy pharmaceutical firms are gouging the public by charging indefensibly high prices for prescription drugs. This argument breaks down into two parts, only one of which is on target.

The solid argument is that the Hatch-Waxman Act, which governs patents for drugs, contains a flaw that allows big drug companies to extend their patents indefinitely.

The meritless argument is that drug prices are kept artificially high by patents, and that the government must take steps to lower drug prices even if it means infringing on the patents. This is a truly dangerous argument because it could erode the whole foundation of copyright and patent law, which has produced incalculable benefits.

Patents on drugs are conceptually no different than copyrights on songs, movies, books, poetry, paintings, photographs or other artistic creations. Their purpose is to give the creators of intellectual works the same rights enjoyed by creators of physical works.

If the Democratic argument for the erosion of intellectual property rights were applied to physical property, it would hold that the government should be allowed to confiscate apartment complexes during housing shortages so it could turn them into public housing. Eventually, no one would build apartments because there would be no assurance that they could recoup their initial investment, much less make a profit.

When legendary blues guitarist B.B. King first started making records, corrupt recording executives gave themselves songwriting credit and accumulated all the royalties that rightfully belonged to King. Unable to make any money, King almost quit the business. Fortunately, he decided to get a manager instead, and through the widespread distributions of his recordings, he became one of the most influential guitarists and singers of the century. Without the ability to protect his works under copyright law, his musical legacy would have been lost.

Drug patents work much the same way. Gov. Jeanne Shaheen has criticized big drug companies for supposedly spending more on advertising than on research and development. What the governor fails to understand is that advertising, like research and development, is itself an investment.

Advertising generates purchases, which generate revenue, some of which is taken in profit and some of which is reinvested. If pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to advertise directly to consumers, as 1st District congressional candidate Martha Fuller Clark proposes, they would make less money and have less to spend on research and development. Likewise for recording companies or book s.

Throughout history, Chinese and Muslim scientists and mechanics invented numerous advanced devices, such as movable type, long before Europeans did. But many of these inventions had no impact on history because they were not released to the world. A recent example of this is a Japanese inventor's claim to have produced an earlier version of Dean Kamen's Segway HT. The Japanese invention may have come first, but that doesn't matter because he never mass produced it, and therefore it never had an impact. Without advertising, a lot of good drugs could be underused.

If the Democratic assault on drug patents succeeds, it will open the doors for similar assaults on all forms of intellectual property, including artistic creations. Copyrights are what allow writers, artists and drug companies to make a living.

Almost all artists are Democrats, or at least are not Republicans. Artists may want to seriously consider the ramifications of the Democratic crusade against drug companies before they give any more money and support to Democratic politicians.

[eno_]

Patents have a much sorter lifespan than copyright, for more reasons one can go into without writing a book. The problem for drug companies is that the approval process takes up much of the life of the patent. A reasonable extension that would bring drug patents into line with other things that take a shorter time to turn into products would be OK. But the current trend of indefinite copyrights is VERY WRONG.

[apochromat]

The thought has crossed my mind that sites like Napster were just a corporate setup to form a basis for more restrictive laws. I never saw the attraction for multiplying and trading pirated works for personal gain. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that once one's mind is infected with some cultural virus, one likes to keep it around for further study. So perhaps these people simply heard the songs on the radio, or saw it on an in-flight movie ... I don't know.

[boris]

"If the Democratic assault on drug patents succeeds, it will open the doors for similar assaults on all forms of intellectual property, including artistic creations. Copyrights are what allow writers, artists and drug companies to make a living."

Although I agree that forcing drug companies to sell on the government's terms is a very bad idea, the above is nonsense.

The crux of the leftists' argument (assuming that they have one at all) is that drugs are necessary for life and health and hence are 'special'. Nobody can claim that songs, paintings, or movies are 'vital necessities'.

Ironically, it is the fact that art is not considered a matter of life and death that ensures these works will continue to be protected...

--Boris