There should be an easy fix for this one though: only give patents if the drug either does something totally new (e.g. cure cancer) or is fundamentally different than any previous version, while being more efficient (no point in a drug that's 99% different but has the same effectiveness).
You have to be careful with this! If you look at the statins, there are more than 5 distinctly different drugs that are work through the same mechanism. Me-too drugs right?
Well, some patients can't take Crestor because of a rare side-effect, so they switch to Lipitor and are happy. You have to remember that patients have individual needs and sometimes what looks like two identical drugs actually provide a benefit to the patient.
Sure, they only way to truly solve these things is stop making it a mechanical process and turn it into an interactive process with people involved who have common sense. Patents should be "deny by default" with the party arguing why they should get one. If they can convince the e.g. "board of experts" then they get it. Then we just have to execute the first "board of experts" member who takes a bribe. :)
