OK - what I mentioned at the conference in response to your remarks was that after the 2005 US Supreme Court Case in Merck v Integra, the types of activity that Larson is describing will not be patent infringement - at least in the US. Now that I have read the excerpts you reproduced, I can see that he is also thinking about potential infringement by the products that he produces - and of course, he has to. However, the very point of Merck v Integra was that you can go ahead and work a patent for experimental reasons or reasons designed to get a new drug registered - but to actually get it to market, you will have to make sure that the end product doesn’t infringe any patents.

So to take Larson’s comments about a patent for a receptor don’t apply any more. (The transcript you’re referring to is from 2001).

Cheers

Duncan

His website is here.

Jonathan Boymal and I discussed this (tangentially) in an Agenda article on the USFTA (Volume 11, Number 3, 2004, pages 235-246).

But from page 139 they say this:

Despite the status of these foundational inventions, there is no doubt, however, that other important methods and technologies which will be required for biomedical research are patented in Australia. The patent landscape is becoming increasingly complicated, and many upstream inventions have now been patented. In addition, it may be that research being conducted by the Australian industry is likely to be seen as increasingly threatening as Australian companies and institutes gain an international presence. In addition, although it would appear that patent rights have not been enforced as vigorously as they have in other jurisdictions, this is something that seems certain to change. Both overseas and Australian companies are starting to take a more aggressive approach to enforcement. . . .

Even though a considerable amount of upstream research is conducted by the Australian industry, respondents in all of the sectors we investigated, frequently require access to upstream patents. Even upstream researchers may need to access patents over particular research tools that are crucial to their research, as not every upstream researcher is in the position of having developed and patented every research tool they may need to conduct their research.

Though they then proceed to tentatively more optimistic conclusions. What’s disclosed in the second para above seems just crazy to me. The more so in an age when we’re only just becoming aware of the power of openness.

For some Australian evidence see Nicol, D. and Nielsen, J. (2003), ‘Patents and Medical Biotechnology: An Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry’, Centre for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper No. 6 (pdf). There may be more recent stuff, but I haven’t followed the issue in the last couple of years. Their conclusion

To date, it appears that the Australian industry has not been exposed to the same level of aggressive enforcement of key research tool patents as in the United States. However, there is no guarantee that this situation will continue.

As you say, the second graph gives a pretty strong case for negative social value of the patent system (outside pharma and chemicals). There are some benefits that aren’t included (firms’ own sales of patented items) but there are also many costs omitted (inventing around and so on).