should the patent law be abolished?

The rest of the world would have to allow drug makers to raise their prices so they can fund their R&D programs.

Without the patent law, all those patent attourneys would be out of work.

Legislators are lawyers, so they would not let that happen.

Here you can compare different options try it is free LOANSVAULT.NET-

RE Should the patent law be abolished?

The reason for a government to get involved with patents is a belief that inventors are motivated to invent something useful, if they can later earn lots of money from their invention.

This does not happen anymore.

Patent trolls may buy patents cheaply from entities not actively seeking to enforce them. For example, a company may purchase hundreds of patents from a technology company forced by bankruptcy to auction its patents.

The cost of defending against a patent infringement suit, as of 2004, is typically $1 million or more before trial, and $2.5 million for a complete defense, even if successful. Because the costs and risks are high, defendants may settle even non-meritorious suits they consider frivolous for several hundred thousand dollars.The uncertainty and unpredictability of the outcome of jury trials also encourages settlement.

What the patent law really does is allow lawyers to use the legal system to extort money.

So America should just make it legal to ignore patents and let a manufacturer copy anything they can sell.

Part of the health care crisis is that we can't buy generic derivitives of drugs that are patented, so the drug companies charge us whatever they feel like charging, even if the markup is 600%

It is about time the rest of the world starts paying corporations to invent things.

Anecdotal counterpoint is not a valid argument here. Yes, there might be some patents that were issued for invalid reasons or that are being abused by their owners. But that doesn't provide any basis for "abolition" of the patent law. For one thing, you'd need a Constitutional amendment to remove the right to obtain a patent (or a copyright, for that matter).

Would any company invest $50 million in R&D and years in FDA testing if they knew that their chemical could be manufactured and sold freely by their competition?

More to the point, if your company is making $6 million per day selling patented pharmaceuticals, how many lawyers do you think you can afford?

In the early 1990s Congress changed the patent duration from "17 years from date of issue" to "20 years from date of application". This was intended to harmonize with international rules but also to thwart those who would delay their patents until after they find out which inventions become most valuable industrially, modify their claims, then have their patents issued, starting the 17-year collection process by extorting - ahem - enforcing their rights.

Nonsense. The patent system needs reform, but to eliminate the patent system completely would stifle innovation. It's also not solely a US decision, since eliminating the patent system in the US would not affect international patent agreements, nor the fact that other countries still would control patent use.

Without patent protection why do you think that drug companies would spend the billions to develop new drugs? The answer is that they wouldn't.