[Ip-health] patents as a requirement for HIF eligibility: new disc. paper

[Aidan Hollis]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
The discussion paper is available at
http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/igh/discussion_papers.html


New discussion paper from IGH
***
Should a Prize System for Pharmaceuticals Require Patent Protection for
Eligibility?

Talha Syed
Harvard University


Abstract: In an earlier iteration of the Health Impact Fund proposal,
Aidan Hollis and Thomas Pogge argued that only those pharmaceutical
innovations that are covered by patent protection should be eligible
for receiving payments. This, however, would fail to take advantage
of a distinct benefit held out by rewards as compared to patents in
the context of pharmaceuticals: rewards can provide incentives for a
broader range of valuable developmental activities than what would
qualify as =93innovative=94 under the patent system=92s proxies. Moreover,
recognizing why and how this is so can produce a salutary shift in
our understanding of the reasons for providing patent protection (or
some alternative innovation policy) for pharmaceuticals. This short
paper discusses why the patent requirement should be dispensed
with and responds to some common concerns with such a position.
***

I would add that while the paper specifically addresses the HIF, the
general arguments apply equally to any similar system of prizes.

Comments are of course welcome: this is a discussion paper.

Aidan Hollis
Professor of Economics

University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW Calgary AB T2N 1N4 Canada
tel: +1 403 220 5861  fax: +1 403 220 5861
email: ahollis@ucalgary.ca
web: http://econ.ucalgary.ca/hollis.htm

Incentives for Global Health
http://www.healthimpactfund.org


_______________________________________________
Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health