Issues posed by a world patent system

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

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 617-634

  Barton, John H ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927019978     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511494529.030     Document Type: Chapter

References (21)

1. David Streitfeld, Note: This Headline is Patented, LOS ANGELES TIMES, 7 Feb. 2003, Part 1, at 1.
2. Robert Barr, Speech to Federal Trade Commission, Public Hearings on Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy (28 Feb. 2002), available at www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/barrrobert.doc
3. James E. Rogan (Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office), Global Recognition of Patent Rights, Speech at WIPO Conference on the International Patent System (26 Mar. 2002), available at http://patentagenda.wipo.int/meetings/2002/program/index.html#2.
4. John H. Barton, The Economics of TRIPS: International Trade in Information- Intensive Products, 33 GEO. WASH. INT’ L L. REV. 473 (2001).
5. Gerald J. Mossinghof and Vivian S. Ku, who argue for the importance of an international patent in World Patent System Circa 20XX, AD, 38 IDEA 529 (1998).
6. John Duffy, Patent System Reform: Harmony and Diversity in Global Patent Law, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 685 (2002).
7. Vicenzo Di Cataldo, From the European Patent to a Community Patent, 8 COLUM. J. EUR. L. 19, 20 (2002).
8. Hanns Ullrich, Patent Protection in Europe: Integrating Europe into the Community or the Community into Europe?, 8 EUR. L.J. 433 (2002).
9. John H. Barton, Non-Obviousness, 43 IDEA 471 (2003);
10. John H. Barton, Reforming the Patent System, 287 SCIENCE 1933 (2000);
11. Robert Hunt, Nonobviousness and the Incentive to Innovate: An Economic Analysis of Intellectual Property Reform, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Working Paper No. 99–3 (Mar. 1999), at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycomments/.
12. David Korn & Stephen J. Heinig (eds.), Public v. Private Ownership of Scientific Discovery: Legal and Economic Analyses of the Implications of Human Gene Patents, 77 ACAD. MED. 1301 ff (Dec. 2002) (special issue).
13. Julia Alpert Gladstone, Why Patenting Information Technology and Business Methods Is Not Sound Policy: Lessons from History and Prophecies for the Future, 25 HAMLINE L. REV. 217 (2002).
14. Mark A. Lemley, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 1495 (2001).
15. Janice M. Mueller, No “Dilettante Affair”: Rethinking the Experimental Use Exception to Patent Infringement for Biomedical Research Tools, 76 WASH. L. REV. 1 (2001)
16. John H. Barton, Patents and Antitrust: A Rethinking in Light of Patent Breadth and Sequential Innovation, 65 ANTI TRUST L.J. 449, 457–58 (1997).
17. Frederick M. Abbott, Political Economy of the U.S. Parallel Trade Experience: Toward a More Thoughtful Policy, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: TRADE, COMPET ITION, AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 177 (Thomas Cottier & Petros C. Mavroidis eds., 2003);
18. Alan P. Klein, A Funny Thing Happened to the Non-obvious Subject Matter Condition for Patentability on Its Way to the Federal Circuit, 6 U. BALT. INTELL. PROP. J. 19-21 (1997)
19. Arti Rai, Addressing the Patent Gold Rush: The Role of Deference to PTO Patent Denials, 2 WASH. U. J.L. & POL’ Y 199- 205 fn. 14 (2000)
20. Robin R. Churchill & Geir Ulfstein, Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law, 94 AM. J. INT’ L L. 623 (2000).
21. Keith E. Maskus & Jerome H. Reichman, The Globalization of Private Knowledge Goods and the Privatization of Global Public Goods [this volume], Pt. III.A.