patents

  • |

    Public Science, Private Checkout

    ByHarlan Quill

    I keep a library card and a calculator nearby for moments like this: taxpayers help fund NIH and university research, then meet the finished medicine at the pharmacy counter priced like a used county courthouse. Not every treatment follows that exact route, and public research can benefit everyone. But when public money absorbs much of the early risk while private companies control the patent and the price, the arrangement deserves more than a ceremonial ribbon cutting.

    The institutional math is remarkably tidy. Public laboratories supply knowledge, universities supply talent, investors celebrate the next big product, and patients receive the portion marked “due now.” That is not necessarily unlawful; it is simply a system with impressive machinery for privatizing the upside and outsourcing the bill. A sensible public investment should purchase public leverage, affordable access, or both. Otherwise taxpayers sponsored discovery, investors collected the dividend, and patients were assigned to crowd-fund the receipt.

  • |

    Tiny Tweak, New Monopoly: Evergreening Shouldn’t Mean a Bigger Bill

    ByJustin Jest

    I’m not saying the billion-dollar backroom worships a stopwatch, but the patent expires and—boom—“innovation” shows up as an extended-release, a new coating, or a combo pill. Same original drug, new paperwork, new dose, with that fresh little seal slapped on like it’s a brand-new invention. Not every reformulation is a real breakthrough; sometimes it’s just the legal version of swapping a street sign and calling it “progress.”

    When competition waits, Medicare keeps paying while the price clock does a victory lap under a new nameplate. A small change shouldn’t mean a bigger bill—yet the system treats “tiny tweak” like it’s the next chapter in monopoly fanfic, just with higher invoices.

End of content

End of content