Suchergebnisse

Patentable subject matter determinations are ultimately based not on judicial doctrines, tests, statutes, or even on the economic rationales underlying the patent system; rather, the fundamental touchstone for what qualifies as patentable technology is simply intuition. Specifically, despite the Federal Circuit's rejection of "technological arts" as a linguistically bright-line test, patentable subject matter decisions inevitably devolve into what is, at base, an intuitive sense of what constitutes technology of the type protectable under the patient system.

Half man, half bull, the Minotaur was the most fearsome monster in Greek mythology. Human torso and bull's head, its horns were sharp as knives, its great hooves could kick the life out the strongest of heroes, and its food was human flesh. Yet under the surface, the Minotaur's myth was sad; his insatiable existence originated in jealousy and lust.

Traditionelle Medizin war und ist die Basis moderner Arzneimittel. Viele indigene Gesellschaften erheben Rechtsansprüche auf Arzneimittel, die von ihrer traditionellen Medizin abgeleitet werden. In der Vergangenheit wurde solches Wissen, das aus nichtwestlichen Gemeinschaften stammte, als freie Informationen betrachtet. Dies führte zu Kritik gegen das Patentsystem als ausbeuterisches Werkzeug der entwickelten Welt. Die Studie behandelt den Patentschutz durch staatliche Gesetzgebung sowie den Schutz traditioneller Medizin durch andere westliche Staaten und internationale Abkommen.

Traditionelle Medizin war und ist die Basis moderner Arzneimittel. Viele indigene Gesellschaften erheben Rechtsanspr?che auf Arzneimittel, die von ihrer traditionellen Medizin abgeleitet werden. In der Vergangenheit wurde solches Wissen, das aus nichtwestlichen Gemeinschaften stammte, als freie Informationen betrachtet. Dies führte zu Kritik gegen das Patentsystem als ausbeuterisches Werkzeug der entwickelten Welt. Die Studie behandelt den Patentschutz durch staatliche Gesetzgebung sowie den Schutz traditioneller Medizin durch andere westliche Staaten und internationale Abkommen

We develop an equilibrium search model of innovation with the possibility of multiple independent discovery. We distinguish innovations from ideas, and we view patents as probabilistic property rights that are constrained by the innovators' option to keep the innovation secret. We find that the patent system can simultaneously stimulate innovation, information disclosure and welfare. An optimal patent may provide more or less protection than secrecy, and in many cases, it provides less, suggesting that its main function is information spreading rather than rewarding the costs of the innovative activity.

Full-text available at SSRN. See link in this record. ; The patent systems of most countries have gradually extended patent protection to inventions involving, and even consisting of, living organisms. In fact, the World Trade Organization ("WTO") Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS") mandates that, in all of its member countries, "patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application." By allowing member countries to deny patentability to "plants and animals other than micro-organisms," TRIPS implies that the default rule is that the full range of organisms, from microbes to macrobes, are indeed potentially patentable subject matter. Canada represents a marked exception. The Supreme Court of Canada ("Supreme Court") negated the patentability of animals and plants, in general, and a genetically engineered mouse, in particular, despite the fact that Canadian statutory patent law is silent on the issue. Although the Canadian government had never availed itself of the escape clause of TRIPS Article 27(3)(b), which allows member states to exclude from patentability "plants and animals other than micro-organisms," a bare majority of the Supreme Court divined that the intent of Parliament was to exclude "higher life forms" from patentability. The Supreme Court variously justified its decision on the basis of "commonly understood" distinctions of "higher" and "lower" life forms, and the striking hypothesis that "higher," though not "lower," life forms "transcend" their genomes. The Supreme Court offered no scientific evidence whatsoever to justify its demarcation of the border between patentable and unpatentable organisms, nor could they because no scientific evidence exists. Failing to cite supporting evidence in this way might be acceptable if the science purported to underlie the decision were self-evident, either through ...