Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Upstream Without A Paddle: Gene Patenting And The Protection Of The "Infostructure", Seth Shulman
Upstream Without A Paddle: Gene Patenting And The Protection Of The "Infostructure", Seth Shulman
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The U.S. patent system, designed to protect rights to specific, marketable gadgets, has increasingly over the past few decades granted patents on comparatively abstract and amorphous ideas that stretch the system beyond recognition. Overly broad patents, and patents too far "upstream" from the marketplace, I argue, undermine the patent regime, hamper innovation, and prove exceedingly difficult to adjudicate. Using a series of conceptual and historical analogies, I attempt to assess the patenting of genes and other broad, "upstream" patents from a public policy context, emphasizing, as many are coming to realize, that things work best in the knowledge-based economy when …
Gene Patents And The Product Of Nature Doctrine, John M. Conley
Gene Patents And The Product Of Nature Doctrine, John M. Conley
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Gene patents have proven to be enormously controversial, evoking a strong response from many categories of skeptics. Objections have focused on the foreclosure of research, the potential denial of healthcare, or the proper application of the patent laws. Gene patents also tend to trigger an elemental response that lies at the core of almost every objection: You shouldn't be able to patent a gene! This article focuses on the latter point, restating it as a question of legal doctrine: Why is it that the law has routinely treated genes as patentable inventions rather than unpatentable natural phenomena? Part II reviews …
Human Gene Patents: Proof Of Problems?, Timothy Caulfield
Human Gene Patents: Proof Of Problems?, Timothy Caulfield
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The patenting of human genes has been the focus of intense policy debate. The concerns associated with gene patenting are diverse, ranging from dignity based critiques to suggestions that patents will drive up the cost of health care. But the two concerns that have generated the most policy attention are that they hurt basic research (also known as the "anti-commons" problem) and access to useful technologies. The goal of this short comment is to question the degree to which existing evidence supports the speculation about these two justifications for patent reform. While the issues associated with gene patents are complex …