Thanks for the perspective.
The issue of downstream royalties is far from simple.
On one hand (PFE's argument), it sounds unfair to pay royalties on sales of a product that somewhat, somehow was at some point in the distant past had some relation with a patented tool (patent that may have expired by the time you sell the product). In this case, one can imagine using SIBI's patented type of assay to get a lead compound. But it may take years to go from this to what may be a totally unrelated (chemically, at least) molecule that may make it into a product.
OTOH, one can also argue that that's life in pharmaceutical development, and that the same case could be made against *any* tool or element (say, a gene sequence that one then uses to set up an assay to "fish out" potential small molecule drugs). Therefore, setting up arbitrary time limits on when royalties may be paid (say, none paid after the tool patent expires) would be *unfair* to the inventors of tools, given the nature of the field in which these tools are useful and used. Thus, such a position, time limits, would discourage such inventors from disclosing their methods.
Going back to Cohen-Boyer, do the patent holders (Stanford et al.) stand to get royalties on EPO, insulin, etc. *after* expiration of the patent? Or, only products *developed* after such expiration would be free of royalties?
Where is Ben Franklin when we need him?
PB |
