Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Ah, back in the debating saddle again. Sorry for the delay, folks, but now that I'm home sweet home again I'm ready and rarin' to go. Thanks for the warm welcome, Vi, and good luck to you in the ensuing cannonade! "Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind." General Douglas MacArthur had a point with this quotation, but he forgot to add that some rules don't need to be broken. Because of this, I negate the resolution. Before I begin, I offer one DEFINITION to clarify the round: VIOLATION: http://www.dictionary.reference.com... defines "violation" as "the act of violating," and "violate" as "to break, infringe, or transgress (a law, rule, agreement, promise, instructions, etc.)." Move with me now to the RESOLUTION ANALYSIS, an explanation and evaluation of the topic: To understand what the resolution asks us in this debate, it is best to use an analogy. Imagine a game of Monopolyï¿½. Monopolyï¿½ has a very clear set of rules, which are outlined in the pamphlet that comes with the game. One of them is this: if you roll three sets of "doubles" in a row, you automatically Go Directly to Jail. If a player rolled three consecutive doubles and did not Go Directly to Jail, he or she has violated that specific rule – and, collectively, the entire rule system of monopoly. (Even when someone cheats in only one aspect, it is stated, "He/she broke the RULES," not simply "the RULE.") Now, if the rules of Monopolyï¿½ said that a player could choose whether to Go Directly to Jail or to remain at his/her position, and the player chose to stay where they were, no rule would be broken or violated, because there would be no provision in the rulebook preventing the latter choice. With these standards for debate set, we can now move on to CONTENTIONS, the meat and potatoes of the case. My position will be split up into two points: I: NO VIOLATION IS PRESENT IN THE PRO CASE My opponent's argument is surprisingly agreeable with mine, for a debate round. Her definitions are not disagreeable, her specifying of the arguments to the USA is fine, and her three reasons that would necessitate widespread drug distribution are not objectionable. But the point that is central to my case is actually also provided in the PRO constructive speech. U.S. patent law (28 USC 1498, as cited in the PRO speech) includes a provision that allows the government (or any contractors employed by the government) to utilize patented products – including pharmaceuticals. Because this practice is permitted by law, the patent has not been violated – it is not broken, it is not transgressed, and therefore it still stands intact. My opponent justifies in her case the USE of pharmaceutical patented products by the government, but not the VIOLATION of said patents. Now, the only way that the PRO case could become applicable to the resolution is if the PRO were advocating that the government would unjustly or inadequately compensate the pharmaceutical company whose product they distributed. While this statement was never actually explicitly made in the PRO's speech, I will add the second contention: II: ACTUAL VIOLATION (BY UNJUST COMPENSATION) WOULD BACKFIRE It is important to realize the value and purpose of a patent in the first place. It is not a tool that allows a particular company to brag about its accomplishments and dangle its invention just out of reach of other companies tauntingly. The patent is an incentive for scientific research and development. Much in the same way that a capitalistic society encourages individuals to work for their own benefit, the patent system allows companies to benefit from their research efforts and gain both the money and the rationale to research further. If patents were violated by giving unjust compensation, both these things would disappear. Any company could purloin another's invention and reap profits. This would drive the price of the drug down and hurt the inventing company fiscally. Also, because every company's discoveries would be threatened, no company would have any compelling urge to research further, preferring to wait for another company to think it up first so that they could pirate the idea. According to Wai Lang Chu on http://www.labtechnologist.com..., "The patent system, as it presently operates, provides the incentive necessary to fuel the development of innovative and beneficial research tools by granting an inventor the exclusive right to control the use of his invention for a limited time…." The free publishing of these trade secrets would stagnate the research process, only leaving the United States (and the whole world) twice as vulnerable for the next filovirus. Remember, however, that this second contention is secondary to the more important first: that the PRO does not actually violate the patent. The second contention will mainly be used as back-up for the rest of the debate should it become necessary. If the method the PRO advocates is "clearly established in our law system," then it is not a violation at all. General MacArthur failed to account for the rules that can remain unbroken. For this reason, and for the two reasons above, I negate the resolution.