Patent laws, which were initially developed to promote and protect innovationof scientists and companies, have actually discouraged the production of newer medicines that are not able to be patented. For example, as shown in the article, “How Patent Law Can Block Even LifesavingDrugs,” by Austin Frakt, many exciting innovationshave been rejected and considered to be unpatentable. This is apparent because many drug patents are turned down because they are not “novel” enough or present functions that are too obvious. Drugs for hypertension and inflammationdrugs prove to be examples that have been labeled as not “novel” or too obvious, and therefore rejected. However,these drugs could have helped many people had it not been for these rejections.

Without approval of patents, medical corporations are discouraged from releasing a specific drug because competition from other corporations constantly hinders them from earning a profit. Although patent laws are designed to prevent profit for “me too” drugs, which are copies from previously developed drugs, they discourage the productionof new and advanced drugs, which ultimately prevents the corporations from releasing them in fear of losing money.

I believe that the process of determining whether a drug deserves a patent should be changed because many drugs that can advance society are obstructed due to corporations’ fears of having their patents rejected. If this process is altered, it can provide many more opportunities for new drugs that could treat diseases that were previously incurable. Furthermore, I believe that the people who decide patents should consider the point of view of the developersof the drug because they need to earn profit, and without patents, competition can prevent the company from earning any money. Overall, I believe the process of determiningwhether a drug deserves a patent should be changed because it may lead to developments of many essential drugs in the future.