HUH??? Patents protect the intellectual rights of inventors so they can make money from them. This ENCOURAGES technological advances and makes it possible for them to get to consumers. Patents actually document, for all the world to see, technological advances. Others can read them, and improve upon them.
Where did you get the idea that patents discouraged technological advances?
Exactly.
There’s talk of reducing the time of patent exclusivity for pharmaceuticals. That means that drug companies won’t hold the patents for their drugs long enough to recoup the costs of developing the drug. The statists in congress want to get cheap generics on the market faster for the beleaguered masses.
Since it takes an average of 10 years and 1 billion dollars to develop a drug, pharma companies won’t be able to have the cash to do research and development. They would have to raise prices on the drugs or stop research (or be funded by the Fed?).
I’m sure there thinking is that if they can remove intellectual property from people more quickly that others will come in and ramp up production of that product (or process, etc.) Ultimately, there will be less incentive to create.
By the way, you are spot on about patents encouraging advances.
I think patents keep technological advances from reaching consumers because they allow companies to feel safe and lessen the motivation to innovate as they think they’ve got the “patent space covered”. Moreover, “First to File” will increase the burden on inventors to file what I call scope patents which outline the invention before defining the details. That takes time away from inventing. If it really does come down a legal battle, notes written in pen (or even pencil) in the hard bound lab notebook should be enough.