Letter: Letter: Patents prevent plagiarism
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Sam Clarke's letter, which you published (10 June) under the heading "Biotech patents hamper research", betrays a misunderstanding of the patent system and the proposals contained in the draft Directive on the Protection of Biotechnological inventions.
Patents do not hamper research. Many jurisdictions have a statutory mechanism to give effect to this principle. In the UK for example, the Patents Act 1977 exempts from infringement something which "is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject-matter of the [patented] invention". What a patent does is to enable the proprietor of an invention to control for a limited period of time its commercial exploitation, and rightly so; without patents, plagiarism would be rife, innovators and their backers would be denied the often necessary incentive to invest, and proprietors of inventions would resort to the only (and imperfect) alternative of trade secrecy, thereby massively inhibiting research.
The draft Directive would do nothing to remove the public's (or a competitor's) ability to seek to revoke a patent which they believe has been wrongly granted, using the procedures laid down in the Patents Act 1977 or the European Patent Convention.
ANDREW SHEARD
Patent Attorney
Kilburn Strode
London WC1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments