Patents and data-sharing in public science

Industrial and Corporate Change

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1013-1031

  Eisenberg, Rebecca S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; PROPERTY RIGHTS; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 33845701199     PISSN: 09606491     EISSN: 14643650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtl025     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Arrow, K. J. (1962), 'Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention,' in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 609-626.
2. Atkinson, R. C. et al. (2003), 'Public sector collaboration for agricultural IP management,' Science, 301, 174-175.
3. Baeuerle, P. A. and D. Baltimore (1996), 'NF-kB: Ten years after,' Cell, 87, 13 20.
4. Bagley, M. A. (2006), 'Academic discourse and proprietary rights: putting patents in their proper place,' Boston College Law Review, 47, 217-274.
5. Bentley, D. R. (1996), 'Genomic sequence information should be released immediately and freely in the public domain,' Science, 274, 533.
6. Campbell, E. G. et al. (2000), 'Data withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials,' Research Policy, 29, 303-312.
7. Campbell, E. G. et al. (2002), 'Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey,' JAMA, 287, 473-480.
8. Egyedi, T. M. (2001), 'Compatibility strategies in licensing, open sourcing and standardisation: The case of Java™,' in H. Coenen, M. J. Holler and E. Niskanen (eds), Fifth Helsinki Workshop on Standardization and Networks, August 13-14, 2000. Available at http://www.tbm.tudelft.nl/webstaf/tinekee/CompatibilityStrategies.pdf
9. Eisenberg, R. S. (1996), 'Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research,' Virginia Law Review, 82, 1663-1727.
10. Eisenberg, R. S. (2000), 'The promise and perils of strategic publication to create prior art: A response to Professor Parchomovsky,' Michigan Law Review, 98, 2358-2370.
11. Eisenberg, R. S. (2001), 'Bargaining over the transfer of proprietary research tools: Is this market failing or emerging?' in R. Dreyfuss et al. (eds), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 223-249.
12. Eisenberg, R. S. and Nelson, R. R. 2002, 'Public vs. proprietary science: A fruitful tension?' Daedalus, Spring, 89-101.
13. Franke, N. and E. Von Hippel (2003), 'Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: The case of apache security software,' Research Policy, 32(7), 1199-1215.
14. Gabriel, R. and W. Joy (1998), 'Sun community source license principles.' Available at http://www.sun.com/software/communitysource/ SCSLPrinciplesPublic.pdf
15. Garber, K. (2006), Biomedical patents: Broad patent faces narrow odds in court battle, Science, 311, 1855-1857.
16. Garud, R. and A. Kumaraswamy (1993), 'Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of Sun Microsystems' open systems strategy,' Strategic Management Journal, 14, 351-369.
17. Ginsburg, J. C. (200 1), 'U.S. initiatives to protect works of low authorship,' in R. Dreyfuss et al. (eds), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 55-77.
18. Heller, M. S. and Eisenberg, R. S. (1998), 'Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research,' Science, 280, 698-701.
19. The International HapMap Consortium (2003), 'The International HapMap Project,' Nature, 427, 789-796.
20. Jaffe, A. B. and J. Lerner (2003), Innovation and its Discontents: How our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation & Progress, and What to do About it. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
21. Kortum, S. and J. Lerner (1999), 'What is behind the recent surge in patenting?' Research Policy, 28, 1-22.
22. Leaf, C. (2005), 'The law of unintended consequences,' Fortune, September 19, 250.
23. Lichtman, D., K. Kraus and S. Baker (2000), 'Strategic disclosure in the patent system,' Vanderbilt Law Review, 53, 2175.
24. Loftus, P. (2006), 'Lilly loses patent fight with Ariad,' Wall Street Journal. Available at http://online.wsj
25. Marshall, E. (2002a), 'Clear-cut publication rules prove elusive,' Science, 295, 1625.
26. Marshall, E. (2002b), 'DNA sequencer protests being scooped with his own data,' Science, 295, 1206-1207.
27. Moses, H. et al. (2005), 'Financial anatomy of biomedical research,' Journal of the American Medical Association, 294, 1333-1342.
28. Mowery, D. C., R. R. Nelson, B. N. Sampat and A. A. Ziedonis (2004), Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford University Press: Stanford.
29. National Research Council (1997), Bits of Power: Issues in Global Access to Scientific Data. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
30. National Research Council (1999), Finding the Path: Issues of Access to Research Resources. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, pp. 10-11.
31. National Research Council (2003), Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
32. Nelson, R. R. (1959), 'The simple economics of basic scientific research,' Journal of Political Economy, 67, 297-306.
33. Parchomovsky, G. (2000), 'Publish or perish,' Michigan Law Review, 98, 926.
34. Pollack, A. (2006), 'Lilly loses patent case to Ariad,' New York Times, May 5.
35. Rai, A. K. (2005), 'Open and collaborative research: A new model for biomedicine,' in R. Hahn (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotech. AEI-Brookings Press: Washington, pp. 131-158.
36. Rai, A. K. and R. S. Eisenberg (2003), 'Bagh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine,' Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 289-314.
37. Reichman, J. H. and P. F. Uhlir (1999), 'Database protection at the crossroads: Recent developments and their impact on science and technology,' Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14, 793-838.
38. Reichman, J. H. and P. F. Uhlir (2003), 'A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment,' Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(315), 336-341.
39. Venter, J. C. et al. (200 1), 'The sequence of the human genome,' Science, 291, 1304-1351.
40. Walsh, J. P. et al. (2005), 'View from the bench: Patents and material transfers,' Science, 309, 2002-2003.