Proprietary rights and collective action: The case of biotechnology research with low commercial value

International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 288-306

  Rai, Arti K ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250780171     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511494529.016     Document Type: Chapter

References (38)

1. Arti K. Rai, Fostering Cumulative Innovation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry: The Role of Patents and Antitrust, 16 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 813 (2001).
2. Robert P. Merges & Richard R. Nelson, On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 COLUM. L. REV. 839 (1990) (discussing general problem of broad rights on pioneer inventions).
3. Michael Heller & Rebecca Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 SCIENCE 698 (1998).
4. Arti K. Rai & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine, 66 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 289 (2003) (discussing possible problems for follow-on research).
5. John Walsh et al., The Patenting and Licensing of Research Tools and Biomedical Innovation, in Patents in the Knowledge-based Economy 285 (National Academies Press 2003).
6. Iain Cockburn, The Changing Structure of the Pharmaceutical Industry, 23 HEALTH AFF. 10 (2004) (discussing advantanges and disadvantages of upstream rights).
7. Robert Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations, 84 CAL. L. REV. 1293 (1996).
8. Eric Campbell et al., Data Withholding in Academic Genetics: Data from a National Survey, 287 JAMA 473 (2002) (survey of academic geneticists).
9. www.bio.org/er/statistics.asp.
10. Arti K. Rai & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine, 91 AM. SC IENTIST 52-54 (2003) (citing data from Bhaven N. Sampat, Georgia Institute of Technology).
11. D.C. Mowery et al., The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by U.S. Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, 30 RES. POL’ Y 99, 117 (2001) (noting that leading patents at the University of California, Stanford, and Columbia “are concentrated in the biomedical arena.”).
12. Geoffrey D. Graff et al., The Public-Private Structure of Intellectual Property Ownership in Agricultural Biotechnology, 21 NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY 989-990 (2003).
13. Sharon Begley & Laura Johannes, Ariad Alleges Eli Lilly Drugs Infringe on Biomolecule Patent, WALL ST. J., 28 June 2002, at C1.
14. www.ariad.com/about/about/_nfkb.html (last updated 10 Mar. 2004).
15. James A. Thomson, Primate Embryonic Stem Cells, U.S. Patent No. 5,843,780 (issued 1 Dec. 1998).
16. http://www.nih.gov/news/rsearchtools/index.htm.
17. Michele Boldrin & David Levine, The Case Against Intellectual Property, 92 AM. ECON. REV. 209 (2002).
18. Robert Merges, A New Dynamism in the Public Domain, 71 U. CHI. L. REV. 183 (2004) (discussing “property-preempting initiatives” by pharmaceutical firms).
19. Jon Merz et al., Diagnostic Testing Fails the Test, 415 NATURE 577 (2002).
20. The World Health Organization estimates annual death from malaria at 1.1 million. www.who.int/tdr/diseases/malaria/diseaseinfo.htm (last visited 14 Aug. 2004).
21. A. Atkinson et al., Intellectual Property Rights: Public Sector Collaboration for Agricultural IP Management, 301 SCIENCE 174 (2003).
22. G. Conway & G. Toenniessen, Feeding the World in the Twenty-first Century, 402 NATURE C55 (1999).
23. Jonathan Knight, A Dying Breed, 421 NATURE 568-569 (2003).
24. The classic statement is MANCUROLSON, THE LOGIC oF COLLECTIVE ACTION: PUBLIC GOODS AND THE THEORY OF GROUPS (Harvard University Press 1971).
25. RICHARD CORNES & TODD SANDLER, THE THEOY OF EXTERNA L ITIES, PUBL I C GOODS, AND CLUB GOODS (Cambridge University Press 2d ed. 1996).
26. www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php (visited 28 June 2003).
27. Yochai Benkler, Coase’s Penguin, or Linux, and the Nature of the Firm, 112 YALE L.J. 369 (2002).
28. Lior Strahilevitz, Social Norms from Close-Knit Groups to Loose-Knit Groups, 70 U. CHI. L. REV. 357 (2003) (discussing situations in which relative strangers interact cooperatively).
29. Arti K. Rai, “Open and Collaborative” Research: A New Model for Biomedicine, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN FRONTIER INDUSTRIES: SOFTWARE AND BIOTECHNOLOGY (Robert Hahn, ed., Joint Center on Regulatory Studies, AEI-Brookings) (forthcoming 2005).
30. Arti K. Rai, Regulating Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science, 94 NW U. L. REV. 77 (1999).
31. Eliot Marshall, Genome Researchers Take the Pledge: Data Sharing, 272 SCIENCE 477 (1996).
32. Jerry Thursby et al., Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities, 26 J. TECH. TRANSFER 59 (2001).
33. Roger Beachy, IP Policies and Serving the Public, 299 SCIENCE 473 (2003).
34. www.pipra.org/activities.php.
35. B. Fischer et al., Collaborations in Rice, 290 SCIENCE 279 (2000).
36. www.pipra.org/activities.php.
37. www.mihr.org.
38. Geoffrey Graff & David Zilberman, An Intellectual Property Clearinghouse for Agricultural Biotechnology, 19 NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY 1179 (2001).