Science and the law: Working through the patent problem

Science

Volumn 299, Issue 5609, 2003, Pages 1021-

  Walsh, John P ^a,b   Arora, Ashish ^c   Cohen, Wesley M ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^c CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LAW ENFORCEMENT; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

DATA BASE; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DRUG INDUSTRY; GENBANK; GOVERNMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LICENSING; MASS MEDIUM; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SHORT SURVEY; STEM CELL; UNIVERSITY;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BIOTECHNOLOGY; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; INTERVIEWS; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); PATENTS; PRIVATE SECTOR; PUBLIC SECTOR; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 0037436166     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.299.5609.1021     Document Type: Short Survey

References (20)

1. R. Levin, A. Klevorick, R. R. Nelson, S. Winter, Brookings Pap. Econ. Activ. 1987 (3), 783 (1987).
2. W. M. Cohen, R. R. Nelson, J. P. Walsh, "Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriabitity conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not)." (Working pap. no. 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, 2000).
3. A. Arora, M. Ceccagnoti, W. M. Cohen, "R&D and the patent premium" (Working pap. no. 9431, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, 2003).
4. M. A. Heller, R. S. Eisenberg, Science 280, 698 (1998).
5. J. Barton, Science 287, 1933 (2000).
6. National Research Council, Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1997).
7. R. S. Eisenberg, in Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property, R, C. Dreyfuss, D. L. Zimmerman, and H. First, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2001), pp. 223-250.
8. R. P. Merges, R. R. Nelson, Columbia Law Rev. 90, 839 (1990).
9. S. Scotchmer, J. Econ. Perspect. 5, 29 (1991).
10. Details and more discussion are provided in J. P. Walsh, A. Arora, W. M. Cohen, in Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, W. M. Cohen, S. Merrill, Eds. (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, in press).
11. W. F. Whyte, Learning from the Field (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1984).
12. A. Arora, A, Fosfuri, A. Gambardella, Markets for Technology (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2001).
13. M. Cho, S. Illangasekare, M. A. Weaver, D. G. B. Leonard, J. F. Merz, J. Mol. Diagn. 5, 3 (2003).
14. B. Uzzi, Am. Sociol. Rev. 61, 674 (1996).
15. Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del. 17 October 2001).
16. S. Maebius, H. Wegner, National Law Journal, 24 December 2001, p. C3.
17. DHHS, Fed. Regist. 64, 72090 (1999).
18. E. Marshall, Science 288, 255 (2000).
19. R. Eisenberg, Science 299, 1018 (2003).
20. The Science, Technology, and Economic Policy Board of the National Academies commissioned and supported this research. The NSF and the Abe Fellowship Program also provided support. We thank J. Cohen for editorial and J. Conde, W. Hong, J., Lee, and M. Saegusa for research assistance.