In this argument we will first explain why patents are important in pharmaceutical research. Patents are a form of property protection that are necessary to ensure returns on the capital invested into inventions. Invention of new drugs requires an enormous investment of both intellectual and financial capital. However after a drug has been invented, then in the case of no patents, the company who invested into the research of the drug would have no advantage over other companies who might wish to produce that drug. The ability of the company to sell the drug wouldn't depend on whether the company invented it. This means that once the company has invented a drug it would have no ability to protect both the financial and intellectual capital it has invested into creating the drug.

Invention of new drugs is capital intensive for three main reasons:

1. It takes a long time to develop new drugs. This is mainly because of government regulation, which requires companies to extensively test the drug before it is marketed so it would be safe for the consumers. In this case government is imposing costs on pharmaceutical companies, it would only be fair if by granting patent protection the government would allow companies to get their investments back.

2. Stemming from the definition of the term “patent”, patents enable the disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good. Without this protection, the inventor might prefer to keep the innovation as a secret (called a trade secret). The act of awarding a patent makes the details of the invention public, enabling further improvement by other inventors. Furthermore, being published on public records ensures that the patentee’s idea won’t be lost to humanity.^[1]

3. Pharmaceutical research is high risk. When starting work on a new drug there is no ability to tell if it will succeed. Many experimental drugs don't work or have adverse side-effects, however the company still has to cover their costs. Through trial and error process, effective drugs eventually emerge, but when they are sold by the company their cost has to include the cost of the failed drugs born by the company. This is because the company has to stay afloat, pay the salaries of it's scientists, secretaries, janitors.

4. In several industries (such as pharmaceuticals), once an invention exists, the cost of commercialization is far less than the initial cost of conception. Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, companies will not make that productization investment and simply neglect their idea.^[2]

Given this analysis we want to prove that patents are good and necessary in terms of encouraging research. Considering the amount of work and money companies put into research and the social good that comes out of the development of new drugs companies have the right to spread the cost of their research over the period of the patent. Governments have to ensure this right, otherwise why should the companies be expected to develop drugs, if they can't reap the fruits of their labor? Quite simply if governments don't provide patent protection companies won't conduct research.

We think the proposition would agree with us that patents are generally necessary and important and that companies have a right to their inventions. Otherwise they would propose abolishing all pharmaceutical patents, but the motion states abolishing patents only on anti-retroviral drugs to fight AIDS.

1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects
2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_and_patents

In our first argument we showed why patents in general are necessary for incentivizing pharmaceutical research and that they are a legitimate property right. The proposition case would be for making a one-off exemption for anti-retroviral drugs. They would be doing this not because patents in general are bad, but because AIDS is a special case. Why is AIDS a special case? Surely it is not because of the ethics of AIDS being a life-threatening disease, there are many other life-threatening diseases, but we wouldn't abolish patents on their medication, because it would stymie the innovation in the drugs for those diseases. AIDS is a special case, because it's such a significant political issue and is such a visible and big problem. The proposition has to concede that patents are a legitimate property right, so the issue in this debate is really who should pay for alleviating AIDS?

What proposition's case really would be is that we should finance the mitigation of AIDS by stealing money and work from the companies who created the anti-retroviral drugs. This is clearly illegitimate. Essentially this is theft from the few to fuel a public will. These few are mainly the shareholders of the pharmaceutical companies, which include old ladies who have put their pensions in the stocks of the company. Through such theft the pharmaceutical companies would not get anything in return for their investments and labor, not even any political capital and goodwill, because that would be gobbled up by the government who goes through with this motion.

Our argument is that if governments and societies believe that AIDS is such a serious issue, then they should support charities, foundations and initiatives (such as Elton John's^[1], Elizabeth Taylor's^[2]) or international plans such as PEPFAR^[3][4] (created and promoted by George Bush) to tackle the disease. Funds accumulated through such schemes could be used to purchase the anti-retroviral drugs at market price and distribute them among the infected.

1. ^ http://www.ejaf.org/
2. ^ http://www.elizabethtayloraidsfoundation.org/
3. ^ http://media.www.vanderbiltorbis.com/media/storage/paper983/news/2008/12/10/Newsfeatures/George.Bushs.AidsFighting.Legacy-3578911.shtml
4. ^ http://www.pepfar.gov/

In this argument we will explain why it is damaging for the government to undermine its patent credibility.

Patents are property rights that ensure companies with a monopoly of the product for a period of time and they act as an incentive to research. But they work only when people and companies trust the government to ensure those property rights. Making a one-off exemption would undermine the government patent credibility. Making a one-off exemption would be detrimental, because companies would not necessarily perceive it as a one-off exemption. They would no longer be sure of government's legal protection of the capital that they invest into research and invention. This would be harmful to all patent industries, because people would then be afraid of investing their money into these industries.

Even if that doesn't happen and people perceive abolishing patents only in extreme cases, it's still bad to do this. This would set a precedent for abolishing pharmaceutical patents for diseases that meet certain conditions like AIDS. These would be diseases that are life-threatening, impact a large number of people and require long-term medication. In these cases the people would expect the government to drop patent protection. Even if this motion solves the problem of AIDS, then what happens when new diseases emerge? Companies would then be unlikely to spend money on developing drugs for these dire conditions. Private companies, however, are the fastest, most efficient way of developing drugs. To explain this we have to look at alternative institutions that might develop drugs. These are government institutions and universities. If pharmaceutical research is constrained to these areas then there are three big issues that arise:

1. Fewer types of drugs will be created.

2. Drugs are created more slowly.

3. There will be less upgrading for existing treatment.

These problems all arise, because for these institutions there is no comparable incentive to private businesses. For pharmaceutical companies it is profitable to develop many different kinds of drugs and upgrade existing treatment, whereas the government will invest only enough to produce a sufficient cure, even if it isn't the best cure. This is especially problematic in the case of anti-retroviral drugs since retroviruses (like HIV) have a high rate of mutation, developing resistance to drugs very quickly, stressing the need for constant development.^[1] Also there is no race to drive these institutions, where as pharmaceutical companies because of the competition that exists between them have the incentive to put maximum effort into coming out with a new drug, to be the first to dominate the market.

So disincentivizing companies to work on new life-threatening diseases, takes away our most efficient and fastest way for developing drugs. This impedes our ability to deal with health problems that arise in the future and that is harm to everybody in the world and to future generations, since everybody has the risk of contracting these diseases.

But even if people and companies would perceive this as a one-off exemption for AIDS then it's still harmful. People would then think (and it would probably be the case) that there's little investment in the private sector for AIDS drugs. That hurts everyone who has AIDS, because it damages their future prospects and feeling of security.

1. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12456349