Exclusive Rights in Life: Biotechnology, Genetic Manipulation, and Intellectual Property Rights

  • E. R. Gold
Chapter
Part of the Molecular Methods of Plant Analysis book series (MOLMETHPLANT, volume 23)

Abstract

Attending any biotechnology conference will confirm it. Amid all the discoveries and developments in the applied sciences we loosely group under the heading of biotechnology, it is impossible to ignore the palpable and ubiquitous presence of commerce. While investors, managers, and financial markets may not share the same enthusiasm about the inner workings of living organisms as a bench scientist, they certainly share the excitement of uncovering novel ways to make money. The key is to turn inventions and developments into a commercial product.

Keywords

Europe Amid Eurasia Protec Terion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barton J (2000) Intellectual property rights: reforming the patent system. Science 287: 1933–1934PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caulfield TA, Gold ER, Cho M (2000) Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debate. Nat Rev Genet 1: 227–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Ekpere JA (2000) OAU model law: African model legislation for the protection of the right of local communities, farmers and breeders, and for the regulation of access to biological resources. Organization of African Unity, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia European Patent Office Board of Appeal (1990) T19 /90Google Scholar
  5. Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co, Ltd (2000) 234 F. 3d 558Google Scholar
  6. Gold ER (2000) Moving the gene patent debate forward. Nat Biotech 18: 1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gold ER (2001a) Patenting life forms: an international comparison. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  8. Gold ER (200lb) Gene patenting. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, Ottawa, Canada Gold ER, Castle D, Cloutier LM, Daar AS, Smith PJ (2002) Needed: models of biotechnology intellectual property. Trends Biotech 20: 327–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gold ER, Gallochat A (2001) The European Biotech Directive: past as prologue. Eur Law J 7: 328–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hegel GWF (1952) Philosophy of right. Knox TM (translator). Oxford University Press, Oxford Human Genome Organization Ethics Committee (2000) Genetic benefit sharing. Science 290: 49Google Scholar
  11. Knoppers BM, Hirtle M, Glass KC (1999) Genetic technologies: commercialization of genetic research and public policy. Science 286: 2277–2278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Locke J (1980) Second treatise of government. In: Macpherson CB (ed) Hackett Publ, Cambridge Moore vs. The Regents of the University of California (2000) 51 Ca1. 3d 120Google Scholar
  13. Posner RA (1981) The economics of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Radin MJ (1982) Property and personhood. Stan L Rev 34: 957–1015Google Scholar
  14. United States of America (2001) Patent office’s utility examination guidelines. Federal Register 66: 1097–1099Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. R. Gold

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations