Do patent holders have an obligation to make their patents available? To what extent?
<p>The company ASML Holding N.V. is, quote Wikipedia:
&quot;the sole supplier of extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) photolithography machines in the world&quot;</p>
<p>This means that ASML has a monopolistic position in the global semiconductor / computer chips supply chain.</p>
<p>If Intel wants to step up manufacturing of computer chips, in response to the global chips shortage, it must buy equipment from ASML. There is no other way.</p>
<p>However, ASML's EUV manufacturing capacity is already at a maximum.</p>
<p>If Intel were to request ASML to allow Intel to manufacture more of those EUV machines at Intel's manufacturing facilities, assuming no technical barriers, does ASML have an obligation to agree?</p>
<p>In general, if a patent holder holds the patent to a world-impacting monopolistic technology, does the patent holder have an obligation to ensure that such technology and the products of such technology is always able to meet market demand?</p>
<p>Furthermore, is there any limit on the profit margins that a patent holder is allowed to make?</p>
<p>Assuming that Pfizer is the only company that has the patent to the manufacturing of a COVID-19 vaccine of reasonable effectiveness. Pfizer's accounts department, after running the numbers through their computers, come to the conclusion that in order to maximize profits, they should limit the supply of the vaccines and sell the vaccines at a cost of 1 million US dollars per dose. What would be the consequences of such a move? Assuming everything is done by the book. No mass riots, no assassinations, no extra-legal sanctions.</p>

<p>In the US, a patent holder has no obligation at all to use their patent. They can charge as much for their patented product as they want, and if there are no alternatives then they're in a pretty good market position. If Intel wants to make more microchips and ASML won't sell them the tools they need, Intel just has to offer more money. It's a monopoly, but that's the whole reason patents exist: giving inventors a monopoly on their inventions in exchange for publishing how they work. There is such a thing as using a patent anticompetitively, but it takes a lot more than charging a high price.</p>
<p>Your Pfizer example runs up against one of the limits of patents, though. Patents are a government-supported monopoly, and they're only useful as long as the government keeps supporting them. A government has the sovereign power to say &quot;we're not going to enforce this patent.&quot; If the company has facilities in that country, the government even has the power to say &quot;you must manufacture more of this product.&quot;</p>
<p>This is rare. Most countries are subject to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), which says they will provide a patent system that's also available to foreigners. But TRIPS allows countries to authorize the unlicensed use of patents to supply their domestic market under appropriate circumstances. The patent owner still has to be paid a fair amount, but the patent isn't ironclad. Countries can also issue compulsory patent licenses to produce drugs for export to other countries, again under appropriate circumstances. You could also have an ad hoc agreement between WTO members to make new TRIPS rules for something. This last option was actually discussed to waive COVID-19 vaccine protection worldwide, although it didn't end up happening. If Pfizer was charging $1,000,000 per dose, it probably would have happened.</p>
<p>As was said in the comments, the Pfizer example was extreme. If Intel can't expand chip production because of ASML's patent, that's basically a commercial problem and should be solved by paying ASML more money. If people can't get COVID vaccines because Pfizer charges too much, that's a humanitarian problem and can be solved through government intervention.</p>

<p>No, of course not. That's so clearly the point, I suggest the Question belongs not in SE Law, but some forum dealing with ethics, morality or philosophy.</p>
<p>Either way, patents exist to help their holders exploit whatever it is, without sharing.</p>
<p>Any obligation &quot;to make their <em>patents</em> available…&quot; would negate that principle, to its own extent. How is that not obvious?</p>

patents