I saw this article about a drug patent lawsuit
in The New York Times today:
Amgen Wins a Crucial Patent Ruling

The part that really caught my eye was this paragraph:

"The work was done in the early 1980’s and the first patent on that work expired at the end of 2004.

In Europe, where there was only one patent, competition is beginning to flourish. But in the United States, owing to quirks in patent law, Amgen received seven patents on the same work by Mr. Lin. Because some patents were not granted until years after Amgen applied, the patent protection could extent until 2015, longer than the 20 years contemplated by patent law."

I know we have had a lot of discussion about whether certain patents, like the swinging on a swing idea, are valid, but it hadn't occurred to me think about the validity of multiple patents for essentially the same thing, as in the case of this drug company. Amgen's patents were upheld, but I would think that if because of those patents the company is going to have a monopoly that is longer than the standard period of time then they should be invalidated. I understand that it is crucial for drug companies especially to have limited monopolies so they can make back the money spent on R&D, but because they are involved in medicine it seems equally important that the monopolies are limited, so that competition will fuel new research and new breakthroughs.