Criticism of patents

This article may be unbalanced toward certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2014)

Legal scholars, economists, activists, policymakers, industries, and trade organizations have held differing views on patents and engaged in contentious debates on the subject. Critical perspectives emerged in the nineteenth century that were especially based on the principles of free trade.^{[1]: 262–263} Contemporary criticisms have echoed those arguments, claiming that patents block innovation and waste resources that could otherwise be used productively,^[2] and also block access to an increasingly important "commons" of enabling technologies (a phenomenon called the tragedy of the anticommons),^[3] apply a "one size fits all" model to industries with differing needs,^[4] that is especially unproductive for industries other than chemicals and pharmaceuticals and especially unproductive for the software industry.^[5] Enforcement by patent trolls of poor quality patents has led to criticism of the patent office as well as the system itself.^[6] Patents on pharmaceuticals have also been a particular focus of criticism, as the high prices they enable puts life-saving drugs out of reach of many people.^[7] Alternatives to patents have been proposed, such as Joseph Stiglitz's suggestion of providing "prize money" (from a "prize fund" sponsored by the government) as a substitute for the lost profits associated with abstaining from the monopoly given by a patent.^[8]

These debates are part of a larger discourse on intellectual property protection which also reflects differing perspectives on copyright.