(06-25-2020, 12:14 AM)cookie2 date Wrote:[member=153]LP[/member]Yes, there is a lot of debate around this.
In fact drug companies hold patents on many compounds that they have yet to find a use for. So in many case they look for where compounds could be used rather finding cures for a particular condition.
The problem is more a discussion of the lax nature of some patent office rather than the validity of the practise.
I think it's reasonable for drug companies to find new and broad uses for their drugs, as long as they patent each one as the discovery happens, and not retrospectively reference some very loose patent from decades ago! Because what happens is they tend to allow 3rd parties to make the discovery then sue those using existing out of scope broad patents.
I've experienced this first hand, some EU and Asian patent offices are very very generous to the local applicants, they award patents so broad it is virtually institutionalised patent trolling. I've known of patents being awarded in some jurisdictions for products that have been highly visible in the global marketplace for 30 years. That's unambiguous prior art yet a patent still gets award!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"