Question

You read about patents and know they can extend for 20 years. That in itself is interesting, but the details are what make this a topic worth discussing. Consider these two instances. Jack invents a new can opener and is granted a patent. Jill invents a pharmaceutical that cures brain cancer by simply taking one of the new pills she invented and is also granted a patent.

Do you think the twenty-year life of the patent is appropriate for both instances? Whether your answer is yes, no or both, share your thoughts that support your opinions.

Answer 1

The 20-year patent period may be appropriate for a simple invention like a can opener, but may not be sufficient for complex inventions like a brain cancer cure.

Step-by-step explanation:

While patents provide an incentive to innovate by protecting the innovator, the length of the patent period is a topic of debate. The 20-year time period is somewhat arbitrary.

For Jack, who invented a new can opener, a 20-year patent may be appropriate. Can openers are relatively simple and can easily be replicated or improved upon by other inventors within a relatively short period of time. Therefore, a 20-year patent allows Jack to earn a good return on his invention without creating a monopoly.

On the other hand, for Jill, who invented a pharmaceutical that cures brain cancer, a 20-year patent may not be appropriate. Brain cancer is a serious and complex medical condition, and it may take a significant amount of time and resources to develop and bring a cure to market. A 20-year patent may not provide enough time for Jill to fully recoup her investment and earn a profit. In addition, a 20-year patent may limit access to this life-saving medication for those who need it.