I do not think it is a question of having more or less. It is about achieving a balance.
As Mr. McKay said, it is important for a company that invented something to protect its market for a certain number of years. That is true in the pharmaceutical sector. If companies do not make money, they will not make new drugs.
At the same time, we want less expensive generic drugs. Where is the balance? Are we talking about 10 years, 12 years or 15 years? I hear from both sides in the manufacturing sector. Some people feel strongly that everything should have intellectual property protection. However, many representatives of SMEs tell me that it is not worth the trouble. In any event, technological change happens so quickly that even if I have protection for 20 years, in five years I am going to have to innovate because my product will not last 20 years. Technology life cycles are not long enough.
I hear both sides, and I am not sure whether more or less is needed. I think we need to strike a balance between the two.
Think about 3D printers. The first patents for 3D printers date from 1982 or 1984. Things exploded when the patents expired, because everyone could use them and create different applications. We need a little bit of both.