Recent incidents in the field such as the Pillar Point patents and the patent filed for a modification of the cataract incision by Pallin, directly concern both medical patents and medical methods patents. The cases have been hotly and extensively debated and the purpose of this article is not to review them. However, it may be time to discuss the ethical and, to a lesser degree, the legal beliefs that underlie patents, licensing, and royalties. The patent system is rooted in utilitarianism's goal of doing the greatest good for the greatest number.
Patents attempt to promote commercial risk, while assuring the benefit of another's work to society.
By securing patents, inventors have a means to be paid for their work and commercial risk is promoted. At the same time, society has the benefit of the invention and innovation. Clearly, there are other methods to create incentive, but the United States stands out in the world for its protection of the patent system. However, the effect of any patent may limit use through royalties that can put the patenting of a method in conflict with a physician's obligation to provide a patient with the most appropriate treatment. The central claim for these patents is that economic incentive is needed to induce innovation in medicine.