R: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

I will argue that governments should not be permitted to violate pharmaceutical patents for any reason, including "public health concerns." Response to Contention One: If the government violated a patent, which I interpret to mean that they allow anyone to mass produce the drug and sell it at low cost, then the public would instantly have access to that particular drug and lives might be improved or saved. However, the pharmaceutical company that invested billions (with a B) in research, development, testing, and safety approvals would lose their entire profit margin on that drug, forever. Thus, the company would be forced to immediately shut down offices and cut thousands of jobs just to stay in business. Then, the company would stop all expensive R&D because patents are now worthless guarantees of future product protection and profits. Thus, NO NEW DRUGS will be developed and the companies will only pursue manufacturing of existing drugs. A lack of new drugs, forever, is a bad thing because we need new drugs to better treat our diseases. Response to Contention Two: If pharmaceutical companies were unable to patent-protect "off-shoot" technologies, and rival firms were able to steal those technologies or research, then the pharmaceutical companies would have no incentive to explore offshoot technologies. They would remain narrowly focused on their specific task so as not to accidentally provide ideas or research for their competitors. Thus, LESS R&D would be conducted, resulting in FEWER drugs to treat diseases. Response to Contention Three: If the government violated patents, this would not guide R&D into other areas of research. Pharmaceutical companies are not government-directed or government-funded. They are private entities that do whatever they want. A pharmaceutical company that no longer has patent protection will not pursue ANY FORM of costly research, because there is no longer any guarantee of recouping expenses by selling an expensive product. FOR EXAMPLE: Imagine the government has just nullified your patents on allergy drugs, costing you billions of dollars. But they "promise" to continue to protect patents on AIDS drugs. Why would a company trust the government to continue to protect patents on AIDS drugs, and risk billions of dollars to begin AIDS research? As soon as the expensive new AIDS drugs are released, you would then argue that AIDS drugs should be cheap or free because they save lives, and you would want the government to violate those patents as well. Breaking the patent system will end drug research. The number of life-saving drugs on the market will DECREASE, and human suffering will INCREASE. SUMMARY: Pharmaceutical companies are for-profit ventures. They invest billions of dollars into research to create a product they can take to the marketplace. If the government fails to protect their product patents, and allows competitors to steal their products, their business model will fail and they will go out of business. Patents are designed to protect profits for a limited time so that the company can recoup their expenses and turn a profit so they can pay the salaries of the smart men in white coats. Eventually, patents expire and then we all get cheap generic drugs. Everyone wins in the end. If you eliminate the patent/profit period, the pharmaceutical companies go out of business and we never get any new drugs ever again.