Abstract
The last thirty years has seen tremendous change in the way that society provides legal and commercial protection to biomedical inventions. Thirty years ago, an inventor wishing to commercialize her discovery was limited to trade secret protection as patents were unavailable (Funk Bros. Co. v. Kalo Co. 1947). To maintain a trade secret, of course, the inventor could not publish the results of her research. Given that the inventor’s academic and professional advancement depended on being first to publish, she was forced to choose between academic and commercial success (Eisenberg 1987). But a lot has changed in thirty years. Today, the same inventor can not only apply for and get a patent on her invention, but, after the patent has been filed, can publish the results without jeopardizing the protection offered by the patent (Eisenberg 1987).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bale, Jr., H.E. 1996. “Patent Protection and Pharmaceutical Innovation” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 29, pp. 95–107.
Beier, F.-K. & Moufang, R. 1994. “Patentability of Human Genes and Living Organisms: Principles of a Possible International Understanding” Patenting of Human Genes and Living Organisms, F. Vogel & R. Grunwald (Eds), Springer, pp. 205–219.
Boyle, J. 1996. Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society, Harvard University Press.
Community Patent Convention, December 15, 1989, art. 27, 89/695/EEC, reprinted in Paterson, Gerald 1992. The European Patent System: The Law and Practice of the European Patent Convection, Sweet & Maxwell, pp. 714–776.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
“Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions” Official Journal, Vol. L213 (1998).
Eisenberg, R.S. 1987. “Proprietary Rights and the Norms of Science in Biotechnology Research” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 97, pp. 177–231.
Eisenberg, R.S. 1989. “Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 1017–1086.
European Patent Convention, October 5, 1973, art. 53(a), reprinted in Paterson, Gerald 1992. The European Patent System: The Law and Practice of the European Patent Convection, Sweet & Maxwell, pp. 499–571.
Evenson, B. Nov. 3, 1998. “Antibiotics in Food Spawn Deadly Superbugs” National Post, p. Al. Funk Brothers Seed Company v. Kalo Company, 333 U.S. 118 (1947).
Gold, E.R. 1996. Body Parts: Property Rights and the Ownership of Human Biological Materials, Georgetown University Press.
Halm, E.A. & Gelijns, A.C. (Eds) 1991. “An Introduction to the Changing Economics of Technological Inno-vation in Medicine” The Changing Economics of Medical Technology, National Academy Press, pp. 1–20.
Heller, M.A. & Eisenberg, R.S. 1998. “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticonimons in Biomedical Research” Science, Vol. 280, pp. 698–701.
Hirtle, M. & Knoppers, B.M. 1998. Banking of Human Materials, Intellectual Property Rights and Ownership Issues: International Policy Positions and Emerging Trends in the Literature, Intellectual Property Policy Directorate.
Levin, R.C. et al. 1993. “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 3 (Special Issue), pp. 783–831 reprinted in The Economics of Technical Change, Edwin Mansfield & Elizabeth Mansfield (Eds), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 242–90.
Mansfield, E. 1994. Intellectual Property Protection, Foreign Direct Investment, and Technology Transfer, The World Bank.
Marshall, E. 1998. “NIH to Produce a ‘Working Draft’ of the Genome by 2001” Science, Vol. 281, pp. 1774–1775.
McKenna, J.J. 1996. “Where Ignorance is Not Bliss: A Proposal for Mandatory HIV Testing of Pregnant Women” Stanford Law and Policy Review, Vol. 7, pp. 133–147.
Merges, R.P. 1993. “Uncertainty and the Standard of Patentability” High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 1–70.
Mokyr, J. 1990. The Lever of Riches: Technology Creativity and Economic Progress, Oxford University Press.
Nolan, K. 1995. “First Fruits: Genetic Screening” Health Care Ethics in Canada, Françoise Baylis et al. (Eds), Harcourt Brace, pp. 403–410.
Parker, D.L. 1994. “Patent Infringement Exemptions for Life Science Research” Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, pp. 615–663.
Ratcliffe et al. 1984. “Perspectives on Prevention: Health Promotion vs. Health Protection” The End of an Illusion: The Future of Health Policy in Western Industrialized Nations, Jean de Kervasdoué, John R. Kimberly & Victor G. Rodwin (Eds), University of California Press, pp. 56–84.
Rosenberg, N. 1994. Exploring the Black Box, Cambridge University Press.
Schrecker, T. et al. 1997. Ethical Issues Associated with the Patenting of Higher Life Forms, Intellectual Property Policy Directorate.
Service, R.F. 1998. “Will Patent Fights Hold DNA Chips Hostage?” Science, Vol. 282, p. 397.
Stockton, W. 1979. Altered Destinies: Lives Changes by Genetic Flaws, Doubleday and Co. U.S. Patent 4,736,866.
Wade, N. Sept. 14, 1998. “In Genome Race, Government Vows to Move Up Finish” New York Times, Sept. 14, p. F3.
Weiss, R. May 11, 1998. “What is Patently Offensive? Policy on ‘Immoral’ Inventions Troubles Legal, Medical Professionals” The Washington Post, Federal Page.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gold, E.R. (1999). Making Room. In: Caulfield, T.A., Williams-Jones, B. (eds) The Commercialization of Genetic Research. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4713-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4713-6_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7135-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-4713-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive