Do Patents Promote Progress or Stifle Innovation?
In a debate that parallels one in the software patents space, some argue that gene patents stifle innovation. A recent New York Times article reports that a cancer patient is suing the owner of a gene patent, Myriad Genetics, and the USPTO. She is joined in her suit by other cancer patients and medical professionals, and is represented by the ACLU. According to the plaintiffs, a gene patent promotes mediocrity rather than progress. Some argue that software patents similarly stifle innovation.
The debate is an old one. The framers of our Constitution gave power to Congress under Article I "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" and so Congress enacted the Patent Act. Many in the past have opined that patents prevent progress because competitors are precluded from practicing the patented claims. However, that's exactly how patents promote progress. Companies that cannot be assured of being able to protect their innovations from copycats have much less incentive to innovate and describe their innovations to others openly. When innovations are openly described, competitors and others can build on the innovations to further advance their fields.
By enabling innovators to protect their innovations "for limited times," the Constitution and our patent laws have created an environment in which innovation is encouraged rather than stifled.
