I was thrilled and glad to hear that Supreme Court of India has reject for exclusive patent rights on cancer drug Glivec, ruling that the drug had failed in "both the tests of invention and patentability" under Indian law. Hats off to this SC verdict. The basis for this verdict is that the modification of a well known cancer-fighting drug is not a patentable new invention. Had it allowed the patent to be granted, Novartis would had made huge money and the drug would have been almost unaffordable to the poor and needy in the Asian subcontinent.
This ruling would be a relief to thousands or patients in India and the Indian subcontinent currently taking the drug.
This ruling would be a relief to thousands or patients in India and the Indian subcontinent currently taking the drug.
While Novartis need all praise for coming out with a modification to the drug to fight cancer effectively, its intentions here are flawed. Further
This is essentially is a poor use of patents.
Patents should be filed with two things in mind
a. For social upliftment and benefit to mankind
b. For new and novel idea
Some examples of good patents
"Arriving upon a new formula that would fight or cure a critical disease"
"A new technology where no Operating System is needed to run computer programs"
Some examples of bad patents
"Showing that a computer is busy using a hour glass"
Many computer patents that are being granted do not even qualify to be filed. I feel there are vested interests while granting patents.
