In countries in which new life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices; those same drugs, where patented, command premium prices because the patents shield patent-holding manufacturers from competitors. These facts show that future access to new life-sustaining drugs can be improved if the practice of granting patents on newly developed life-sustaining drugs were to be abolished everywhere.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacture is nevertheless a profitable enterprise.
Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.
In some countries specific processes for the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs can be patented even in cases in which the drugs themselves cannot be patented.
Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.
Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.
第一遍读题的时候...读得太慢...且压根就没有体会到开头的两种药的对比
前提:①没有获得专利权的维持生命药,都被sold at affordable 的价格
②同样都是维持生命的药,获得专利的那些可以command很高的溢价(要价很高),因为专利权保护他们免于竞争者的竞争
结论:如果对新药的专利行为被全面取消,那么人们future access to新的维持生命的药将会提高
gap:没有专利保护的话确实会降低药的价格,可是没有专利保护,药厂直接不研究新药了,那你的access也不会提高
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论