Diagnostic Kits/The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
AClearwater (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
AClearwater (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Pressman, L. et al., 2006. The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions: an empirical survey. Nat Biotech, 24(1), 31-39 | Pressman, L. et al., 2006. The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions: an empirical survey. Nat Biotech, 24(1), 31-39 | ||
Exclusivity | Exclusivity | ||
*"Several reports from national and international bodies note that genetic testing applications require far less investment after initial gene discovery than development of therapeutic proteins, and so the rationale for exclusive intellectual property rights may be less compelling7, 8, 9, 10, 11." (Pressman, L. et al., 2006) | *"Several reports from national and international bodies note that genetic testing applications require far less investment after initial gene discovery than development of therapeutic proteins, and so the rationale for exclusive intellectual property rights may be less compelling7, 8, 9, 10, 11." (Pressman, L. et al., 2006) | ||
**Footnote 8 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, London, September 2002). http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/CIPRfullfinal.pdf (accessed October 13, 2005). | **Footnote 8 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, London, September 2002). http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/CIPRfullfinal.pdf (accessed October 13, 2005). |
Revision as of 15:31, 11 September 2009
Pressman, L. et al., 2006. The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions: an empirical survey. Nat Biotech, 24(1), 31-39
Exclusivity
- "Several reports from national and international bodies note that genetic testing applications require far less investment after initial gene discovery than development of therapeutic proteins, and so the rationale for exclusive intellectual property rights may be less compelling7, 8, 9, 10, 11." (Pressman, L. et al., 2006)
- Footnote 8 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, London, September 2002). http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/CIPRfullfinal.pdf (accessed October 13, 2005).