NYTIMES piece considers the implications of the rising use of patents in the clean energy sector:
Related:
A fascinating example of a broken system -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/09/the-crazy-reason-it-costs-14000-to-treat-a-snakebite-with-14-medicine/
Overpriced cholesterol drugs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/09/the-crazy-reason-it-costs-14000-to-treat-a-snakebite-with-14-medicine/
Overpriced cholesterol drugs
An excellent survey article on patents:
Boldrin, Michele, and David K. Levine. 2013. "The
Case against Patents." Journal of Economic Perspectives,
27(1): 3-22.; Open Access: https://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf
Abstract
The case against patents can be summarized briefly:
there is no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and
productivity, unless productivity is identified with the number of patents
awarded—which, as evidence shows, has no correlation with measured
productivity. Both theory and evidence suggest that while patents can have a
partial equilibrium effect of improving incentives to invent, the general
equilibrium effect on innovation can be negative. A properly designed patent
system might serve to increase innovation at a certain time and place.
Unfortunately, the political economy of government-operated patent systems
indicates that such systems are susceptible to pressures that cause the ill
effects of patents to grow over time. Our preferred policy solution is to
abolish patents entirely and to find other legislative instruments, less open
to lobbying and rent seeking, to foster innovation when there is clear evidence
that laissez-faire undersupplies it. However, if that policy change seems too
large to swallow, we discuss in the conclusion a set of partial reforms that
could be implemented.