A provisional patented paper application procedure could promote earlier disclosure of novel scientific knowledge.
References
Andrews, L.B. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3, 803–808 (2002).
Caulfield, T., Cook-Deegan, R.M., Kieff, F.S. & Walsh, J.P. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1091–1094 (2006).
Cook-Deegan, R., Chandrasekharan, S. & Angrist, M. Nature 458, 405–406 (2009).
Cukier, K.N. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 249–251 (2006).
David, P.A. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 160, 9–34 (2004).
Eisenberg, R.S. Yale LJ 97, 177–231 [225] (1987).
Holman, C.M. Trends Biotechnol. 25, 539–543 (2007).
Heller, M.A. & Eisenberg, R.S. Science 280, 698–701 (1998).
Shapiro, C. in Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1 (eds. Jaffe, A.B., Lerner, J. & Stern, C.) 577–579 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2001).
Merz, J.F., Kriss, A.G., Leonard, D.G.B. & Cho, M.K. Nature 415, 577–579 (2002).
Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E.G., Anderson, M.S., Causino, N. & Louis, K.S. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 277, 1224–1228 (1997).
Schissel, A., Merz, J.F. & Cho, M.K. Nature 402, 118 (1999).
Campbell, E.G. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287, 473–480 (2002).
Grushcow, J.M. J. Leg. Stud. 33, 59–84 (2004).
Murray, F. & Stern, S. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 63, 648–687 (2007).
35 US Code § 112, 113.
Walsh, J.P., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Science 309, 2002–2003 (2005).
Brenner v. Manson 383 US (1996), 519, 534.
Vitronics Corp v. Conceptronic Inc. 90 F3d (Fed. Cir. 1996), 1576, 1583.
Fromer, J.C. Iowa Law Rev. 94, 539–606 (2009).
Long, P. Univ. Chic. Law Rev. 69, 625–680 (2002).
35 US Code § 102(b).
Tokkyo Ho [Patent Law] § 30(31) & 30(33).
Anonymous. European Patent Convention. Article 54 (European Patent Office, Munich, 1973).
Benowitz, S. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94, 80–81 (2002).
Borger, J. Rush to patent genes stalls cures for disease. Guardian (London) 15 December 1999, p.1.
Williams-Jones, B. Health Law J. 10, 123–146 (2002).
Caulfield, T., Gold, E.R. & Cho, M.K. Nat. Rev. Genet. 1, 227–231 (2000).
Fabrizio, K.R. & Di Minin, A. Res. Policy 37, 914–931 (2008).
Petherbridge, L. Maine Law Rev. 59, 339–384 (2007).
Bagley, M.A. Boston Coll. Law Rev. 47, 217–274 (2006).
Ebersole, T.J., Guthrie, M.N. & Goldstein, J.A. Intellect. Prop. Technol. Law J. 17, 6–13 (2005).
Franzoni, C. & Scellato, G. Proc. Acad. Innov. Entrepreneurship 2008, 388–401 (2008).
Anonymous. Federal Register. 73, 47535, 47540 (2008).
35 US Code § 119(e), 120.
35 US Code § 102(e).
35 US Code § 111(b).
35 US Code § 112 (first paragraph).
Axelrod, R. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 75, 306–318 (1981).
Rapoport, A. in Game Theory as a Theory of Conflict Resolution (ed. Rapoport, A.) 17–34 (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1974).
Cipra, B. Science 261, 162–163 (1993).
Skevington, P.J. & Hart, T.P. BT Technol. J. 15, 39–44 (1997).
Feng, H. & Wah, C.C. Inf. Manage. Comput. Secur. 10, 159–164 (2002).
Tananbaum, G. & Holmes, L. Learn. Publ. 21, 300–306 (2008).
Wood, D. Learn. Publ. 14, 151–158 (2001).
Locke, J. in Two Treatises of Government (ed. Lasslet, P.) Second Treatise §5 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1967).
Machan, T.R. in Liberty for the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Libertarian Thought (ed. Machan, T.R.) 209–226 (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, 1995).
Narveson, J. in Liberty for the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Libertarian Thought (ed. Machan, T.R.) 19–40 (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, 1995).
Nozick, R. Anarchy, State and Utopia (Basic Books, New York, 1974).
Hailwood, S.A. Exploring Nozick: Beyond Anarchy, State and Utopia (Avebury, Aldershot, UK, 1996).
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Zvi Bentwich and Isaac (Zahon) Bentwich for their invaluable comments on a previous version of this article. I also thank Moshe Maor and Avner de-Shalit for preliminary discussions regarding the article's theme. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the Lady Davis Trust at the Hebrew University for its generous financial support that enabled the pursuit of this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bentwich, M. Changing the rules of the game: addressing the conflict between free access to scientific discovery and intellectual property rights. Nat Biotechnol 28, 137–140 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0210-137
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0210-137
- Springer Nature America, Inc.
This article is cited by
-
Leveraging Research Failures to Accelerate Drug Discovery and Development
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (2020)
-
The European Open Science Cloud and commercialization
Nature Biotechnology (2018)
-
Open science versus commercialization: a modern research conflict?
Genome Medicine (2012)