“Understanding Intellectual Property: The Power Dynamics and Misuse of Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry”

In a recent discussion, Tahir Amin, a renowned intellectual property expert, drew upon a quote from a German economist that was later translated into a book by a Cambridge professor, titled “Kicking Away the Ladder”. The quote encapsulates the idea that once one reaches the top of the ladder, they kick it away to prevent others from climbing up. Amin argues that this metaphor is a fitting representation of how laws and trade rules are framed in intellectual property, with the aim of preventing competition. He suggests that intellectual property is essentially about the political economy of comparative advantage and power dynamics, dictating how economies function in the modern world.

Amin further elaborates on the strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies, particularly in the small molecule space, which is the realm of organic chemistry. He explains that these companies typically secure the first patent, which provides the broadest coverage to protect their research area. This initial patent could potentially cover millions of compounds that have been screened. The companies then proceed to identify which of these compounds are most effective for a specific disease area and formulate it accordingly.

The first patent is designed to broadly cover all aspects, effectively ring-fencing the research area to prevent others from entering. Subsequent patents usually focus on the delivery of the product or compound into the body, followed by various tweaks to the dosage form. Amin argues that while these modifications may seem innovative, they are merely applications of existing science.

Amin challenges the notion that such modifications should be rewarded with a 20-year patent. He acknowledges that investment should be rewarded, but argues that these are merely incremental iterations of existing science and knowledge. He suggests that the current “one size fits all” model of the patent system is flawed, as companies have learned to manipulate it to their advantage.

Amin proposes a reevaluation of the system, questioning whether a different model is needed for these “low-hanging fruit” type, slightly innovative tweaks. He distinguishes between invention and innovation, arguing that invention is the truly path-breaking science, while innovation is merely the commercialization of it.

Amin also discusses the concept of planned obsolescence, a strategy developed during the Great Depression to stimulate consumption. He argues that the term “innovation” has been misused, particularly in the pharmaceutical field, where companies often claim that a new drug is innovative when it is scientifically not new for the purpose of a patent.

Amin expresses concern over the extraction of monopolies as a result of the misuse of innovation. He argues that society has come to view innovation as a panacea, equating it with progress. However, he contends that much of what is considered innovation is not progress, but rather incremental changes that do not qualify as inventions, which is what the patent system is designed to protect.

In conclusion, Amin calls for a clearer distinction between innovation and invention, arguing that the current conflation of the two has muddied the waters. He suggests that this conflation is deliberate, as it is easier to claim an innovation than an invention, the latter of which requires a higher bar. His insights provide a thought-provoking perspective on the current state of intellectual property laws and the need for reform.