The institutional nature of the patent system: Implications for bioethical decision-making

Ethics and Law of Intellectual Property: Current Problems in Politics, Science and Technology

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 247-267

  Thambisetty, Sivaramjani ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900742007     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (68)

1. R. Brownsword, "The Ethics of Patenting: A Legal Perspective", paper presented at the Roundtable on the Bioethical Issues of Intellectual Property Rights, March 28-29, 2003, University of Cambridge. Available at http://www.shef.ac.uk/ipgenethics/roundtable/papers/RBrownsword.pdf, accessed on March 30, 2006.
2. S. Thambisetty, Understanding Morality as a Ground for Exclusion from Patentability under European Law, Eubios J Asian and Intl Bioethics, March 12, 2002, pp. 48-53.
3. Howard Florey/Relaxin, [1995] EPOR 541.
4. S. Basheer, "Block Me Not: Are Patented Genes 'Essential Facilities'?" ExpressO Preprint Series, April 3, 2005, Working Paper No. 577, available at http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/577'.
5. M. Heller, R. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation: The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, Science 1280(5364) (1998), pp. 698-701.
6. S. Thambisetty, "Human Genome Patents and Developing Countries", Study Report 10, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, U.K. Government (2002), available via http://www.iprcommission.org/.
7. R. Fujikawa, Federal Funding of Human Stem Cell Research: An Institutional Examination, Southern California Law Review 78(1075) (2005).
8. B. Doern, "Global Change and Intellectual Property Agencies" (London: Pinter Publishers, 1999), p. 31.
9. M. Lemley, "Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office", Berkeley Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper Series 1021 (Berkeley: Olin Program in Law and Economics), fn 3, p. 2.
10. CIPO, Intellectual Property - Innovation on a Global Scale, Annual Report 2001-2002, p. 2.
11. S. Scotchmer, On the Optimality of the Patent Renewal System, RAND Journal of Economics 30(2) (1999), pp. 181-196.
12. J. Gans, S.P. King, R. Lampe, "Patent Renewal Fees and Self Funding Patent Offices", Legal Studies Research Paper No. 64 (Melbourne: University of Melbourne Faculty of Law, 2004), p. 14.
13. R.P. Merges, As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 577(14) (1999).
14. A. Abbott, Pressured Staff 'lose faith' in Patent Quality, Nature 429 (2004), p. 423.
15. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Corporate Plan (2000), p. 17.
16. Corporate Plan (2001), p. 71.
17. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Corporate Plan (2001), p. 66.
18. B. Kahin, The Expansion of the Patent System: Politics and Political Economy, First Monday 6(1) (2001), p. 7.
19. D.A. Farber, P.P. Frickey, Law and Public Choice: A Critical Introduction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).
20. W.M. Landes, R.A. Posner, The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Law (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 2004), available at http://www.aei.brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=985.
21. C. Baldock, O. Kingsbury, "The Biotechnology Directive and its Relationship to the EPC", July 2000 (Boult Wade Tennant), available at http://www.boult.com/information/ArticleDetails.cfm?ArticleID=31.
22. J. Pila, Dispute Over the Meaning of 'Invention' in Article 52(2) EPC - The Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions in Europe, International Review of Industrial and Copyright Law 36 (2005), pp. 173-191.
23. ESC Opinion, COM (2002) 92 Final - 2002/0047 (COD) (September 19, 2002) 5.4. This is noted by J. Pila, p. 191.
24. C. Sunstein, A. Vermeule, "Interpretation and Institutions", John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper No. 156 (Harvard: The John M. Olin Center for Economics, Law and Business).
25. P. Wagner, Of Patents and Path Dependency: A Comment on Burk and Lemley, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 18 (2004), p. 1341.
26. S.A. Bent et al., Intellectual Property Rights in Biotechnology Worldwide (New York: Stockton Press, 1987), pp. 6-12.
27. M. Llewellyn, From Outmoded Impediment to Global Player: The Evolution of Plant Variety Rights, in R.C.D. Vaver, L. Bentley (eds), Intellectual Property in the New Millennium: Essays in Honour of William R. Cornish (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
28. A. Varma, D. Abraham, DNA is Different: Legal Obviousness and the Balance Between Biotech Inventors and the Market, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 9(53) (1996), p. 78.
29. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health (National Academies Press, 2006), p. 70.
30. R. Eisenberg, Obvious to Whom? Evaluating Inventions from the Perspective of PHOSITA, Berkeley Tech Law Journal 19(885) (2004).
31. J. Hughes, Political Economies of Harmonisation: Database Protection and Information Patents, Cardozo Law School Burns Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, Research Paper Series No. 47 (2002).
32. M. Llewelyn, Industrial Applicability/Utility and Genetic Engineering: Current Practices in Europe and the United States, EIPR 11(473) (1994), p. 474.
33. M. Hewlett, A. Christie, An Analysis of the Approach of the European, Japanese, and United States Patent Offices to Patenting Partial DNA Sequences (ESTs), IIC 34(6) (2003), pp. 581-710.
34. W.M. Landes, R.A. Posner, An Empirical Analysis of the Patent Court, 71 University of Chicago Law Review 111 (2004), p. 112.
35. Landes, Posner, The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Law (Washington, 2004), pp. 26-27, available at http://www.aei.brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=985.
36. Landes, Posner, "An Empirical Analysis of the Patent Court", p. 27.
37. P. Wagner, L. Petherbridge, "Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance", 152 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1105, p. 1111.
38. P. Wagner (Mostly) Against Exceptionalism, Public Law Research Paper No. 7 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Law School), p. 5.
39. Wagner, Petherbridge, Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance, pp. 1117-1118.
40. B. Dhar, Will Global Patent Courts Work?, Economic Times, March 23, 2004. Available at http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/575999.cms.
41. Ernst Young, Beyond Borders: The Global Biotechnology Report, 2002.
42. Pisano, Mang, Collaborative Product Development and the Market for Know How: Strategies and Structure in the Biotechnology Industry, in Burgelman, Rosenbloom (eds), Research on Technological Innovation, Research and Policy (Greenwich: JAI Press, 1993), pp. 109-120.
43. Kroll et al., Tracing the Influence of Basic Scientific Research on Biotechnology Patents: A Case Study of Signal Transduction and Transcriptional Regulation (STTR), Patent World, March 1998, pp. 38-46.
44. R.M. May, Raising Europe's Game: How to Create a Research Council that is a Champion's League for Science, Nature 430 (2004), pp. 831-832.
45. R. Eisenberg, Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government Sponsored Research, Virginia Law Review 82(1663) (1996), pp. 1664-1665.
46. P. Mikhail, Hopkins v. CellPro: An Illustration that Patenting and Exclusive Licensing of Fundamental Science is not Always in the Public Interest, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 13(375) (for a critique of the policy with specific reference to biology).
47. The Royal Society, Keeping Science Open: The Effects of Intellectual Property Policy on the Conduct of Science, April 2003.
48. Annual Survey on University Technology Transfer Activities, Financial Year 2002 (Nottingham: Nottingham University Business School, 2003).
49. A. Kaur Rai, Regulating Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science, North Western University Law Review 94(77) (1999).
50. R.S. Eisenberg, Proprietary Rights and the Norms of Science in Biotechnology Research, Yale Law Journal 97(177) (1987).
51. R. Eisenberg, Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use, University of Chicago Law Review 56(1017) (1989)
52. S. Kieff, Facilitating Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science - A Response to Rai and Eisenberg, Northwestern University Law Review 95(691) (2000)
53. M. Lemley, The Law and Economics of Internet Norms, Chicago-Kent Law Review 73 (1989), pp. 1257-1294. Similarly, the NIH is a governmental body backed ultimately by the law.
54. R. Merton, The Puritan Spur to Science in The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 228-253
55. R. Eisenberg, Proprietary Rights and the Norms of Science in Biotechnology Research, Yale Law Journal 97(177) (1987), pp 182-183.
56. Cornish, Llewellyn (eds), Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003), pp. 842-843.
57. C. Jennings, "Universities Unnerved by Revised Rules for Sharing NIH Research", Nature 430 (2004), p. 953.
58. "Share Issues", Nature 430 (2004), p. 951.
59. M. Rimmer, The Freedom to Tinker: Patent Law and Experimental Use, Expert Opinion (London: Ashley Publications, 2005).
60. H. Varmus, Office of the Director, Determination in the Case of Petition of CellPro, Inc., Aug. 1, 1997 (National Institutes of Health), available at http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug97/nihb-01.htm.
61. H. Varmus, Office of the Director, Determination in the Case of Petition of CellPro, Inc., Aug. 1, 1997 (National Institutes of Health), available at http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug97/nihb-01.htm., p. 8.
62. B. Mcgarey, A. Levey, Patents, Products and Public Health: An Analysis of the Cellpro March In Petition, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 14(1095), p. 1107.
63. J.L. Turner, In Defence of the Patent Friendly Court Hypothesis, available via http://ssrn.com/abstract=713601 (April 2005).
64. K. Murashige, Patents and Research - An Uneasy Alliance, Academic Medicine 77(12) (2002), pp. 1329-1338, p. 1331.
65. R. Merges, One Hundred Years of Solicitude: Intellectual Property Law, 1900- 2000, California Law Review 88(2187) (2000).
66. C. Lindbloom, The Science of Muddling Through, Public Administration Review 19 (1959), pp. 79-88.
67. W. Hayes, Policy Formulation: An Introduction, The Public Policy Web http://www.geocities.com/~profwork/pp/formulate/.
68. W. Cornish, Intellectual Property: Omnipresent, Distracting, Irrelevant, Clarendon Law Lectures (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 10-12.