Intellectual Property Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Intellectual Property Law - Essay Example He is just as responsible as the Ph.D. student for having come up with a cure for the common cold. However, there are some things that Trevor might want to consider before applying his name to the patent. Coming from a relatively unknown Ph.D. student, this â€Å"cure for the common cold† could have major consequences (good and/or bad). The good consequences that could happen is that the cure for the common cold could be a huge success and garner both Trevor and the Ph.D. student international acclaim—since this would be such a huge discovery. On the other hand, there have been no clinical trials on the medication/drug. If something were to go wrong with the drug being used by actual people, Trevor could also be liable for damages claimed against him if he were to be named in a lawsuit which could prove the drug was faulty. Thus, whether Trevor puts his name on the drug discovery patent or not may have a lot to do with liability, as shall be seen in the future. In the s ubsequent follow-up question, we will speak more about this thread or line of thought as well. Trevor has to think in terms of dollar signs as well—or, in his case, Euros. This is because trial medications can actually cost a lot of money to get approval for to get them to take off in terms of popularity. Also, a lot of doctors need to proffer the medication before the drug starts to gain popularity. In addition, Trevor should think about all these aspects before he assigns his name to anything. With so many things that could possibly go wrong, it doesn’t make sense for Trevor to wildly assign his name to a product that he’s not completely sure about in terms of safety. The other unknown element that might be difficult to ascertain is what Trevor’s legal recourse would be in... In the same manner, torts could come into play were people to complain about this new medication slash prescription drug. The Consumer Protection Act basically guarantees that any product that a consumer consumes will be safe for them to consume. Trevor and this Ph.D. student have no idea what they are doing in terms of reassuring that they have adequate protection against the retributions that they could face, if, indeed it is the case that the medication is faulty. Thusly, the copyright alone will not protect Trevor and the Ph.D. student in case the drug does turn out to be faulty. It is simply a matter of judging what should be done in this case. Copyright law aims to protect those who have patented the item—but on the other hand, someone must be at fault if the drug turns out to be faulty. The government should not assume that weighty responsibility unless it wants to take the risk of having class action lawsuits filed against it in the case that the drug either: a) does n ot indeed work; or b) is faulty in some way, shape, or form. The Consumer Protection Act was basically put in place to protect the consumer. Basically, even though the people who made the product (Trevor and the Ph.D. student) have a copyright on the patent, that does not excuse the pair from being either negligent or having neglected a duty of care. Trevor and the Ph.D. student (and possibly, the person that signed off on the patent) could be in trouble if the drug were presumed to be faulty. Trevor and the student conducted no tests—other than a single trial, with no controls—in order to legitimize the drug’s supposed positive effects. So, in effect, having a copyright on a product does not prevent the public from suing against the maker of the product, in essence.