Are "strong patents" beneficial to innovative activities? Lessons from the genetic testing for breast cancer controversies

Industrial and Corporate Change

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1205-1221

  Orsi, Fabienne ^a   Coriat, Benjamin ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER; INNOVATION; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 31144463297     PISSN: 09606491     EISSN: 14643650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icc/dth086     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Académie des Sciences (1992), la brevetabilité du génome, rapport no32. éditions Techniques & Document Paris.
2. Arora, A. and R. P. Merges (2004), 'Specialized supply firms, property rights and firm boundaries,' Industrial and Corporate Change, 13, 451-475.
3. Arrow, K. (1962), 'Economic welfare and allocation of resources for inventions,' in R. R. Nelson (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Brower, V. (1997) Testing, testing ... testing? Nature Medicine, 3, 131-132.
5. Cassier, M. and J. P. Gaudillière (2000a), 'Le génome: Bien privé ou bien commun?' Biofutur, 204, 26-30.
6. Cassier, M. and J. P. Gaudillière (2000b), 'Recherche, médecine et marché: La génétique du cancer du sein,' Sciences Sociales et Santé, 18, 29-49.
7. Coriat, B. and F. Orsi (2002), 'Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States: Origins, content, problems,' Research Policy, 31, 1491-1507.
8. Coriat, B. and F. Orsi (2005), 'Propriété intellectuelle, marchés financiers et promotion des firmes innovantes - Un retour sur la nouvelle économie,' in A. M. Frison-Roche and A. Abello (eds), Droit et Economie de la Propriété Intellectuelle. PUF, Paris.
9. Coriat, B., F. Orsi, and O. Weistein (2003), 'Does biotech reflect a new science-based innovation regime?' Industry and Innovation, 10, 231-253.
10. Dasgupta, P. and P. David (1994), 'Toward a new economics of science,' Research Policy, 23(5), 487-521.
11. Eisenberg, R. (1987), 'Property rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research,' Yale Law Journal, 97, 177-231.
12. Eisenberg, R. (2000), 'Analyze this: A law & economics agenda for patent system,' Vanderbilt law Review, 53, 2081-2098.
13. Harnett, C. (1996), 'The human genome and the downside of federal technology transfer,' Genome Symposia, Risk: Health, safety & environment, http://www.rpic.edu/.
14. Heller, M. and R. Eisenberg (1998), 'Can patent deter innovation? The anti-commons tragedy in biomedical research,' Science, 280, 698-701.
15. Kaufert, P. A. (2000), 'Health policy and the new genetics,' Social Science and Medicine, 51, 821-829.
16. Merton, R. (1973), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigation, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
17. Nelson, R. (1959), 'The simple economics of basic scientific research,' Journal of Political Economy, 67, 297-306.
18. Nelson, R. (2003), The market economy and the scientific commons. Working Paper, International and Public Affairs, Columbia University.
19. Orsi, F. (2001), Droits depropriété intellectuelle et marchés financiers dans les nouvelles relations science/industrie, le cas de la recherche sur le génome humain. Doctoral dissertation, Aix-Marseille II University.
20. Orsi, F. (2002), 'La constitution d'un nouveau droit de propriété intellectuelle sur le vivant aux Etats-Unis: Origine et signification économique d'un dépassement de frontière,' Revue d'Economie Industrielle, 99, 65-86.
21. Orsi, F., C. Sevilla, and B. Coriat (2005), 'Upstream patents and public health. The case of genetic testing for breast cancer,' in L. Orsenigo, G. Dosi, and M. Mazzucato (eds), Knowledge Accumulation and Industry Evolution: The Case of Pharma-Biotech. Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).
22. Rai, A. (2001), 'Fostering cumulative innovation in the biopharmaceutical industry: The role of patents and antitrust,' Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 16, 813-853.
23. Rai, A. and R. Eisenberg (2003), 'Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine,' Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 289-313.
24. Scherer, F. M. and J. Watal (2001), 'Post-trips option for access to patented medicines in developing countries', CMH Working Paper Series, N°WG4: 1.
25. Sevilla, C., C. Julian-Reynier, F. Eisinger, D. Stoppa-Lyonnet, B. Bressac-de Paillerets, H. Sobol, and J. P. Moatti (2003), 'The impact of gene patents on the cost-effective delivery of care: The case of BRCA1 genetic testing,' International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19, 287-300.
26. Sevilla, C., J. P. Moatti, C. Julian-Reynier, F. Eisinger, D. Stoppa-Lyonnet, B. Bressac-de Paillerets, and H. Sobol (2002), 'Testing for BRCA1 mutations: A cost-effectiveness analysis,' European Journal of Human Genetics, 10, 599-606.
27. USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) (2001), 'Utility examination guildlines,' Federal Register, 66, 1092-1099.
28. Wadman, M. (2001), 'Testing time for gene patent as Europe rebels,' Nature, 413, 443.
29. Williams-Jones, B. (2002), 'History of a gene patent: Tracing the development and application of commercial BRCA testing,' Health Law Journal, 10, 121-144.