System is Out of Step with Today’s Citizens
This passage is adapted from the article “An Early Expression of Democracy, the U.S. Patent System is Out of Step with Today’s Citizens” by Shobita Parthasarathy (©2015 Shobita Parthasarathy).
The U.S. patent system, first established in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, was made to be fair and equal—particularly compared to the European patent systems of the time. The U.S. encouraged great participation in the system by keeping patent application fees low and creating public displays of patented technologies to inspire others to create, too.
The U.S. system, in other words, made patents, innovation, and entrepreneurship a possibility for every citizen. The idea was to increase innovation, which would help the economy and eventually society as a whole. In many ways, these efforts were successful. Patent application rates grew through the 19th and 20th centuries, and in 2014, the U.S. gave out more than 300,000 patents, for things ranging from photocopiers to solar panels. Indeed, many industries have said they owe their success to this early patent system.
This approach has also gone global, buoyed by international legal agreements intended to make it easier for inventions to travel, for inventors to collect rewards across borders, and for markets to span nations. This system has held for hundreds of years and is built on the idea that encouraging innovation through patents will ultimately be good for everyone. It sees every citizen as a potential inventor, and believes that if laws help inventors, they automatically help the public.
But the relationship between the patent system and the people has changed in recent decades. Public health activists have launched lawsuits saying that, rather than making technology easier to get to, patents create monopolies that make good health unaffordable for a lot of people. In 2013, a group of patients, health care workers, and scientists challenged patents on genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer at the U.S. Supreme Court. They argued the patents had led to expensive and low-quality genetic tests available only through one company. Meanwhile, small farmers have organized protests against seed patents, suggesting they speed up big-company control of agriculture in ways that are bad for their businesses, for innovation, for buyers, and for the environment.
Other groups have prompted legal hearings and media campaigns arguing that patents justify working with and earning money from morally controversial areas of research. These campaigns began as early as the 1980s, when environmental activists, animals rights groups, and religious leaders challenged the patenting of genetically engineered animals. They worried that by turning these animals into products, the patent system would change our relationship with the natural environment.
Patent system officials and lawyers tend to view these criticisms as seriously missing the point. They argue that these citizen critics do not understand how the patent system works: the system is focused simply on recognizing the novelty, creativity, and usefulness of inventions. This attitude is also built into the rules and processes of the system, which make it nearly impossible for average citizens to participate, except by applying for patents.
Is it possible to change the system to take into account the newly engaged public? Consider, for example, the pan-European patent system, which is in many ways quite similar to the U.S. patent system. In recent years, it has been open to public participation in its official proceedings, and considered moral and social-economic concerns in its decisions. It has been particularly sensitive to citizens’ concerns about patents on software and biotechnology.
In 2007, the European Patent Office invited a group of its critics to participate in developing a report that identified the challenges and opportunities it would face over the next 30 years. In response, governments across Europe have followed and taken steps to limit patent monopolies that might hurt public health and agriculture.
It is worth recognizing that while the U.S. system was first created to be a democratic improvement on the European systems of the time, today’s pan-European patent system is far ahead of the U.S. patent system in terms of its public engagement and its attention to the issues that citizens care about. If the U.S. patent system wants to keep the public’s trust, it has to realize that the 21st-century citizen is very different from the 18th- century citizen. Today’s citizen cares about the moral and social-economic consequences of patents and the technologies they cover, and is not satisfied to assume that the system’s benefits eventually make their way to the majority of the population. She also wants to have an active role in making decisions.
Taking this citizen seriously will require significant patent system reforms, including increasing opportunities for the public to participate in patent decision-making, allowing more legal and bureaucratic challenges on behalf of the public interest, and including more emphasis on moral and social-economic implications into our patent laws.
Question
Which argument does Shobita Parthasarathy make with her statements about “citizens” in paragraph 6?
Responses
A The very idea of the patent system was about public engagement.The very idea of the patent system was about public engagement.
B The citizen would not have been excluded if they were European.The citizen would not have been excluded if they were European.
C Ignoring the citizen in the U.S. patent system causes public distrust.Ignoring the citizen in the U.S. patent system causes public distrust.
D Today’s citizen is more responsible and yet dissatisfied with technology.Today’s citizen is more responsible and yet dissatisfied with technology.
Skip to navigation
© Progress Learning 2024, All Rights Reserved.
Terms
|
Privacy
PHONE 1-877-377-9537
FAX 1-877-816-0808
Blog