http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...
Make a pretty damning indictment of my argument.
Although I never really liked the patent system, I believed that it was ultimately "the best system given the alternatives" because I believed that in the absence of patent protection, pharmaceutical output would be reduced from lack of incentive. Historically, this has not been the case.
Although the authors do agree that abolishing the system in one fell swoop would be a bad idea because it would be politically untenable, prevent the reformation of certain institutions e.g. The FDA, and adversely affect medical researchers and pharmaceutical companies. They instead propose a phased reformation process which includes but is not limited to reducing the costs of phase II and phase III clinical trials (via NIH support / reformation), deregulating patent enforcement and instead affect private contract machinery, and ultimately phase out patents entirely.
My argument largely rested on my assumption that pharmaceutical companies were spending their money in a socially optimal way and that pharmaceutical output would be reduced in the absence of trade protectionism. It seems that empirically, the pharmaceutical industry is not an exception to the "trade protectionism is a bad idea" rule-- like I previously tried to argue.
They propose a series of reforms to the patent system (with the eventual goal of phasing it out) that would reduce costs.
I over estimated the amount of R&D money that was being properly spent. I did not realize how effective certain parts of the global industry have been in the absence of patents. And I did not account for the fact that the patent system incentivizes copy cat drug design. I look forward to finding out where else I'm wrong about healthcare economics.