Boston Globe on Tamiflu compulsory licenses - protect patents, don’t break them

The Boston Globe ran an op-ed piece two days ago that I consider to be the most coherent and well-structured argument against the use of compulsory licensing of Tamiflu patents that has appeared in traditional media to date.

The Globe argues that “breaking” the Tamiflu patent is wrong from a basic private property point-of-view, that doing so would not be helpful in a battle against any outbreak of the current avian flu strain (H5N1) in humans for several reasons, and that the use of compulsory licenses (the “breaking” being debated) would have dangerous, long-term consequences because the practice would decrease the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop new vaccines.

“But the most important role for government is to uphold private property rights and ensure that the rule of law applies — which means protecting rather than breaking patents. The alternative — the rule of the mob — would truly be devastating.”

Finally, a little common sense is showing up in the Tamiflu compulsory license media frenzy.