Wait, wait... aren't patents supposed to <i>encourage</i> R&D? The monopoly rent from a patent is supposedly the only way to encourage firms to do R&D, to innovate rather than copy.<p>And aren't patents getting stronger based on case law? The i4i vs Microsoft thing re-affirmed quite a strict standard as to patent validity. I know it's nothing compared to how copyrights are being made stronger and stronger, but still, patents are being made stronger.<p>Shouldn't we be seeing <i>more</i> innovation on that basis? There's a general trend towards strong "intellectual property" protections, and Big Pharma has been the industry pushing that kind of thing pretty hard.<p>So where's the real problem? Big Pharma R&D not working, FDA getting irrational about approvals, Big Pharma coasting for the past N years? Biology research has hit the limits of what it can do?
"Twenty drug approvals in the United States this year, and others in the next few years, will help replace the revenue"<p>They make that statement at the end of the article in an almost offhand way, but no analysis I have seen for <i>any</i> of the big pharmas shows them anywhere near to replacing lost revenue from the near-term patent expirations. We are in a period of the fewest approvals for new drugs than almost any time since the beginning of the FDA (and similar regulatory agencies around the world). The industry is in bad shape, and there seems to be no relief for the lack of R&D productivity any time soon.
I used to hear somewhat-reasonable cynicism over this, that the drug companies could just make some minor change (add more sugar) and repatent it. Did this ever work, and does it no longer apply?