I've not analysed any recent drug patents, but I do wonder who gets to decide whether a difference is trivial or non-trivial?
Many new drugs are found by applying very slight variations to existing ones. Some have radically altered effects. This has always been the case.
For example, the list of codeine and morphine related drugs is huge. Many vary by only a single group. Heterocodeine is the reverse isomer of codeine, so pretty damned similar, and yet it's 6 times more potent than morphine (patented in 1935).
Which were novel? All, none, or just the ones that are found to behave very differently?
How differently?
Patenting a slightly improved drug doesn't mean you can't still use the old one more cheaply. It just means there's a slightly better one available at the higher price.
If the new drug is so much better than the old one that you would never consider taking the old one, then surely the new one is different enough to patent?
Of course it would be great if we had massive amounts of publicly funded open and honest research with each country motivated by the honour and pride of being world-leaders in the curing of disease...
_________________jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."
When you're feeling too silly for x404,
youRwired.net