#50 Morales, Vianca Ronnin

STS 10 / Sci 10 RR

1. Why do we protect Intellectual Property rights?

Intellectual property refers to the intangible assets of a given person and refers to the
intellectual creativity of its creator (Sharma 1). It is divided into two categories: (1) Industrial
Property, which refers to patents and trademarks, and (2) Copyright, which covers literary
works (What is Intellectual Property? 2). The rights that are related to Intellectual Property
allow creators to benefit from their own creation. These rights are stated in Article 27 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which highlights the right to benefit from the
protection of interests that result from ownership and authorship of scientific or literary
creations (What is Intellectual Property? 3). Thus, with these being said, the protection of
Intellectual Property rights is essential in fostering innovation. Without the protection of
ideas, individuals would not be able to benefit fully from their inventions, and artists would
not be able to be fully compensated for their creations (Why is Intellectual Property
Important?). Furthermore, protection of Intellectual Property rights drives economic growth.
According to an article by Alex Sluzas, industries that are based upon Intellectual Property
account for over a third of the total U.S.GDP, and its overall impact comes to 40% of US
financial growth (Sluzas). Also, from a business perspective, protection of IP rights is
important because it has the capability of setting your company apart from your competitors,
it could form an essential part of your marketing, and could also be sold or licensed, bringing
in more revenue for the company (Protecting Intellectual Property).

Sources:

Sharma, Dushyant. “Intellectual Property and the Need to Protect It.” Vol. 9, no. 1, Sept.
2014, doi:10.5958/2250-0138.2014.00014.5.

Sluzas, Alex. “What Is Intellectual Property and Why Is It Important to

Protect?” Philadelphia's Most Accomplished IP Law Firm, Paul&Paul, 13 Mar. 2019,
https://www.paulandpaul.com/what-is-intellectual-property-and-why-is-it-important-to
protect.

“The Importance of Protecting Intellectual Property.” Nibusinessinfo.co.uk, Invest Northern

Island, 2 Apr. 2019, https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/importance-protecting
intellectual-property.

“What Is Intellectual Property?” Wipo.int, World Intellectual Property Organization,

https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdf.

“Why Is Intellectual Property Important?Why Is IPR Important?” Why Is Intellectual Property

Important? | STOPfakes.gov - Intellectual Property Rights Resources and
Assistance, Intellectual Property Rights Information & Assistance, 7 July 2016,
https://www.stopfakes.gov/article?id=Why-is-Intellectual-Property-Important.

Page 1 of 5
2. Should inventions or creativity should be patented or restricted to those willing to pay?

A patent is a type of intellectual property that grants its owner the right to exclude
others from making, selling, or using the creation under patent, for a limited period of years.
To have a creation or invention patented means to have sole ownership of the right to use
and/or sell one product (What is a patent?). Since the invention is an intellectual property of
its creator, he/she has the right to do with his/her product as he/she so pleases. If in his/her
discretion the creator deemed it worth to patent his/her product, it is a right that one can
object to. Moreover, if the creator decides to put a price or raise the value of the product,
there is nothing the general public can do about it.
In my opinion, it is the patent owner’s decision whether he or she wishes to restrict the
usage of the product to those who want to pay. However, I also think that in cases such that
of Jack Andraka, the welfare and the beneficence of his product for the general public must
be taken into consideration. As said in his TED-Talk, it costs just about 30 cents to avail of
the test he has invented. However, if the patent for this product falls into the hands of our
society’s biggest pharmaceutical companies, there is no guarantee that the price would
remain as low as what Andraka opted for it. It is a well-known fact that the patents for most
drugs belong to the big pharma companies, and drugs such as insulin and those for
hypertension are more often than not very costly and not at all affordable to most people.
Also, according to an article by Mariana Mazzucato, most of the research that goes into
coming up with new drugs is funded by taxpayers’ money. However, the patent of these
drugs belong to a big pharma company, Sofosbuvir. In a case like this, it is clear that the one
reaping the benefits are not necessarily those who actually worked on the drug, but a third
party who controls the prices and what goes into the market (Mazzucato). In cases like these
especially, I believe that if the product would be very beneficial to a lot of people such that in
the case of drugs and medicine, the patent should not hold and thus should make an
exception.

Sources:

Mazzucato, Mariana. “Big Pharma Is Hurting Drug Innovation.” The Washington Post, WP

Company, 17 Oct. 2018,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/10/17/pharmaceutical/?
noredirect=on.

“What Is a Patent?” Findlaw, Thomson Reuters,

https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/what-is-a-patent.html?
fbclid=IwAR1sk_vlEcFWFhu-QEYPZh9tddVj6pYljZXqpZ5HVywwjNjs5Nx-_eCX5dE.

Page 2 of 5
3. Does the critical nature of the intellectual property make an exception?

As abovementioned in the second question, the decision as to what the restrictions

and exceptions of intellectual property are must be upon the discretion of the patent owner. I
truly believe that this is only fair as the conception and the creation of the said product is
dependent upon its creator, and thus it is only fair that the decision as to what to do with this
product falls upon its owner. However, I believe that there should be a definition as to what
constitutes a “critical nature”, and what exceptions are acceptable under patent. In my
opinion, if the product has the potential to save lives or as in the case of Andraka’s invention,
detect life-threatening diseases, exceptions must and should apply. If the product serves for
the betterment of the general public and would be useful and beneficial to most people, the
stipulations that were included by the owner in his/her patent could be disregarded. But if the
product or invention is not, in its essence, life-changing, then the patent must hold and must
be followed.

Page 3 of 5
4. Would it make a difference in your opinion if it was your ideas?

If it were my ideas, of course I would want them patented to ensure that I have control
over who is allowed to make use of my ideas and my inventions. I am aware of the fact that
coming up with a patent-worthy invention is not an easy feat, and I think it’s just fair for the
creators to have the decision with what to do with their ideas. However, as I said above,
given certain instances and considerations, I would be more than alright with having
exceptions in my patent--if my patent includes the fact that people would have to pay for my
invention--such as if I know my creation would benefit a lot of people. It’s not really always
about the money; sometimes it’s about how you can be able to contribute to your society. I
believe that protection of Intellectual Property rights is about finding the balance between
fostering innovation, giving creators the credit they deserve, but at the same time having
ideas and inventions that would contribute to the betterment of the world.

Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5