Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patents, Innovation, and Privatization

Commentary on: “Data Management in Academic Settings: An Intellectual Property Perspective”

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that intellectual property rights were crucial to scientific advancement. Yet, the framers also recognized the need to balance innovation, privatization, and public use. The courts’ expansion of patent protection for biotechnology innovations in the last 30 years raises the question whether the patent system effectively balances these concerns. While the question is not new, only through a thorough and thoughtful examination of these issues can the current system be evaluated. It is then a policy decision for Congress if any change is necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Amgen Inc., v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 929 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

  • Association for Molecular Pathology, et. al., v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 669 F. Supp. 2d 365 (2010).

  • Bilski v. Kappos 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).

  • Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1974).

  • Brenner v. Mason, 383 U.S. 519 (1966).

  • Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).

  • Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948).

  • Geller, L. (2010). Data management in academic settings: An intellectual property perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9240-4.

  • Heller, M., & Eisenberg, R. (1998). Can patents deter innovation. Science, 280, 698–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, H. (2004). Defending the privatization of research tools: An examination of the “Tragedy of the Anticommons” in biotechnology research and development. Emory Law Journal, 53, 359–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

  • Torrance, A., & Tomlinson, B. (2009). Patents and the regress of useful arts. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 10, 130–167.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 4002 10th Ave S, Birmingham, AL, 35222, USA

    Ramona C. Albin

Authors
  1. Ramona C. Albin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramona C. Albin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Albin, R.C. Patents, Innovation, and Privatization. Sci Eng Ethics 16, 777–781 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9234-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9234-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation