Suppose that it would cost a firm $10 million to develop a new drug. In the absence of a patent, other firms will be able to copy and bring to market a generic equivalent of the drug in three years. In each of these three years, the firm would earn monopoly profits of $3 million. A patent will generate monopoly status for the firm for twenty years. If the government knew this information ahead of time, which of the following is most CORRECT?
A) The government should not grant a patent to the firm, because the firm would earn monopoly profits for three years even without the patent.
B) The government should not grant a patent to the firm, because monopoly leads to efficiency losses relative to the competitive market.
C) The government should grant a patent to the firm, because even with a patent the firm will not earn a monopoly profits.
D) The government should grant a patent to the firm, because the firm would not produce the drug at all without a patent.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Without a patent, the firm would only earn monopoly profits for three years, whereas with a patent, the firm would earn monopoly profits for twenty years. Thus, the patent provides a strong incentive for the firm to produce the drug. Therefore, the government should grant a patent to the firm in order to encourage innovation and investment in research and development, which ultimately benefits consumers.

Suppose That It Would Cost a Firm $10 Million to Develop