> Completely inaccurate, and in any case I don't see the relevance. Coming up with the treatments isn't even the issue in a lot of cases - delivering the treatment without killing the patient (or causing other unacceptable damage to him/her) is. Why should copyright on treatments not be sufficient?
What is the difference between a 'drug' and a 'treatment'?
>It is standard procedure for them to publish only successful trials, but not the unsuccessful ones
Every drug before being granted an FDA approval must pass through public trials. Their results are, well, public ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/ ).
Companies are free to do their own post-approval trials for their own purposes, and they are not forced to publish their results. But so what?