In our latest Liberty Update, we highlight how the Biden Administration is inexplicably resurrecting…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Internet Speeds INCREASED After Repeal of So-Called "Net Neutrality"

In our latest Liberty Update, we highlight how the Biden Administration is inexplicably resurrecting the zombie "Net Neutrality" that caused demonstrable harm to internet service during its mercifully brief lifetime at the end of the Obama Administration.  Once again, our friend economist Steve Moore illustrates one of the critical points in this debate well.  Namely, internet speeds shot back sharply upward after the Trump Administration FCC under Ajit Pai repealed the Obama FCC's Title II-Net Neutrality order:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="557"] Repealing "Net Neutrality" Increased Speeds[/caption]


October 03, 2023 • 09:14 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Coalition Urges Against Denying Patents, Exclusivity and Property Rights to Biomedical Innovators Print
By CFIF Staff
Friday, May 08 2020

In a letter to Congress, CFIF joined with a large coalition on a letter expressing “strong opposition to the idea several Democratic lawmakers are pushing:  To deny patents, exclusivity, and property rights to biomedical innovators, targeted specifically at those working furiously on vaccines, diagnostics, therapies, and cures for the COVID-19 scourge.”

The letter, which can be viewed below, was organized by Conservatives for Property Rights.

View the Letter Here (PDF) 

May 7, 2020

Dear Member of Congress:

We write to express strong opposition to the idea several Democratic lawmakers are pushing: To deny patents, exclusivity, and property rights to biomedical innovators, targeted specifically at those working furiously on vaccines, diagnostics, therapies, and cures for the COVID-19 scourge. While the proposal is said to apply only to medicines for COVID-19, even that limitation would be dangerous, disruptive, and unacceptable. Therefore, Congress must exercise prudence and good judgment and reject this shortsighted idea.

The proposal calls for three exclusivity-stripping measures to be included in a COVID-related bill. Biopharmaceutical companies would be denied the following essential patent and private intellectual property rights:

• “[E]xclusivity for any COVID-19 vaccine, drug, or other therapeutic—whether it has been developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars and publicly funded, or not.”

• Sale of “any COVID-19 vaccine, drug or therapeutic at an unreasonable price, whether or not it has been developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars.”

• “Full transparency,” dictated as “publicly report[ing] the total expenditures of the manufacturer on: research and development, disaggregated by clinical trial phase and the percentage of those total expenditures that was derived from federal funds; materials and manufacturing; and meeting statutory standards and carrying out postmarket requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

To float such stunted concepts demonstrates complete, perhaps willful ignorance of America’s great assets, patents and exclusivity. The U.S. patent system was founded on exclusivity for limited duration to the “first and true inventor.” The right to exclude others from the newly created property of an invention, including from making, selling, using, or importing a protected invention such as a drug, is balanced by full disclosure of the invention. This “patent including the patentee’s competitors, has served the United States and the American people exceptionally well. It has yielded the Founders’ goal of “progress of science and useful arts.”

Moreover, to deny exclusivity provided by patents or regulatory means, for government to dictate price, or to require disclosure of sensitive proprietary commercial information for an invention demolishes the foundation of America’s private property rights-centered IP system and our innovation ecosystem. This would be a tragedy of immeasurable degree—not only for COVID sufferers, but patients fighting any disease, virus, or malady. It would benefit competitors like China and be a national and economic security setback for America.

We have full confidence in urging rejection of the exclusivity- and IP-destroying proposal. We are in good company.

Ranking Democratic Member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Chris Coons recently said, “I am having conversations about vaccines and vaccine development and bio–defensive measures. If you want a world–class biopharma industry, you got to pay attention to whether or not a company that invents something or develops something new is actually able to recover their costs. And whether they can recover their costs and make a profit largely depends on the IP environment in which they’re operating.”

Joseph Allen, Democratic Sen. Birch Bayh’s Judiciary staffer responsible for the landmark legislation known as the Bayh-Dole Act, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year, highlights how government price controls—euphemistically called “reasonable pricing”— don’t work. Allen writes: “The result wasn’t a lowering of prices but a collapse of partnerships with [the National Institutes of Health after it put such price controls in licensing terms in the 1990s]. Here’s what then NIH Director Harold Varmus said when he rescinded the provision in 1995: ’… the pricing clause has driven industry away from potentially beneficial scientific collaborations with (NIH) scientists without providing an offsetting benefit to the public.’”

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar has warned, ““We would want to ensure that we work to make it affordable, but we can’t control that price because we need the private sector to invest. . . . Price controls won’t get us there.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIH regards private-sector drug firms operating in the free market as indispensable: “We always need a pharmaceutical partner. . . . I can’t think of a vaccine, even one in which we’ve put substantial intellectual and resource input, that was brought to the goal line without a partnership with industry. So this is a very natural process that we’re doing right now.” Further, “I have not seen in my experience situations in which we were involved in the development of a vaccine, particularly for low- and middle-income countries that really needed it, where the pharmaceutical companies priced it out of their reach.”

The practical role of IP and regulatory exclusivity, market-based pricing, and confidential proprietary information amidst multiple competitors moving fast to develop competing products, on a biopharmaceutical invention or something else, boils down to giving the owner an open field to commercialize the invention—which often costs many times that of invention. Exclusive rights are critical to raising private investment for developing the product and the market for it, hopefully succeeding commercially and thereby recouping up-front research-and-development costs, as well as fund future R&D.

Thus, preserving exclusivity for the patent or regulatorily provided term of any forthcoming COVID-19 drug is vital to finding effective medicines for the next virus. The cumulative benefit across the innovation ecosystem is seen today in already having more than 300 clinical trials on potential COVID medicines, in sequencing this novel coronavirus in weeks instead of months or years, in the pace of identifying antiviral candidates in just 2-3 months, and realistically expecting a vaccine in 12-18 months rather than 10 years.

Therefore, we urge Congress to spurn the destruction of the dynamo at the heart of America’s innovation: intellectual property and free enterprise. Do not let these misguided proposals become part of any legislation. Send them back to the pit full of bad ideas.


James Edwards
Executive Director
Conservatives for Property Rights

Ed Martin
Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund

Ryan Ellis
Center for a Free Economy

George Landrith
Frontiers of Freedom

Seton Motley
Less Government

C. Preston Noell III
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

Jeffrey Mazzella
Center for Individual Freedom

Kevin L. Kearns
U.S. Business & Industry Council

Curt Levey
The Committee for Justice

Ashley Baker
Director of Public Policy
The Committee for Justice

Thomas Schatz
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Charles Sauer
Market Institute

The Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell
Former U.S. Ambassador
United Nations Human Rights Commission

Dan Schneider
Executive Director
American Conservative Union

Tom Giovanetti
Institute for Policy Innovation

Matthew Kandrach
Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Grover Norquist
Americans for Tax Reform

Katie McAuliffe
Executive Director
Digital Liberty

Sara Croom
Executive Director
Trade Alliance to Promote Prosperity

Tim Andrews
Executive Director
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Dee Stewart
Americans for a Balanced Budget

Ginevra Joyce-Myers
Executive Director
Center for Innovation and Free Enterprise

Adam Mossoff
Chair, Forum for Intellectual Property
Hudson Institute

Ron Pearson
Executive Director
Conservative Victory Fund

Dick Patten
American Business Defense Council

Rick Manning
Americans for Limited Government

Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Tom DeWeese
American Policy Center

Carrie Lukas
Independent Women’s Forum

Heather Higgins
Independent Women’s Voice

Michael Bowman
American Legislative Exchange Council Action

Lisa B. Nelson
ALEC Action

Philip Thompson
Policy Analyst for IP and Trade
Property Rights Alliance

* Organization names appear for identification purposes.

Notable Quote   
"In the three months since President Joe Biden decided to campaign on the glories of 'Bidenomics,' inflation started creeping back up, the unemployment rate rose, and his approval ratings on the economy have steadily dropped. Now, stagflation is back in the news. All of it is leading Democrats to urge Biden to ... shift his messaging.Stagflation -- the combination of rising inflation, high unemployment…[more]
— Issues & Insights Editorial Board
Liberty Poll   

Should any sitting president publicly pick either side in a private labor dispute?