展望专利、数据市场和数据驱动医学的公地。开放与知识产权政治经济学

K. Sideri
{"title":"展望专利、数据市场和数据驱动医学的公地。开放与知识产权政治经济学","authors":"K. Sideri","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scaa011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars who point to political influences and the regulatory function of patent courts in the U.S. have long questioned the courts’ subjective interpretation of what ‘things’ can be claimed as inventions. The present article sheds light on a different but related facet: the role of the courts in regulating knowledge production. I argue that the recent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, which made diagnostics and software very difficult to patent and which attracted criticism for a wealth of different reasons, are fine case studies of the current debate over the proper role of the state in regulating the marketplace and knowledge production in the emerging information economy. The article explains that these patents are prospect patents that may be used by a monopolist to collect data that everybody else needs in order to compete effectively. As such, they raise familiar concerns about failure of coordination emerging as a result of a monopolist controlling a resource such as datasets that others need and cannot replicate. In effect, the courts regulated the market, primarily focusing on ensuring the free flow of data in the emerging marketplace very much in the spirit of the ‘free the data’ language in various policy initiatives, yet at the same time with an eye to boost downstream innovation. In doing so, these decisions essentially endorse practices of personal information processing which constitute a new type of public domain: a source of raw materials which are there for the taking and which have become most important inputs to commercial activity. From this vantage point of view, the legal interpretation of the private and the shared legitimizes a model of data extraction from individuals, the raw material of information capitalism, that will fuel the next generation of data intensive therapeutics in the field of data driven medicine.","PeriodicalId":230649,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prospect Patents, Data Markets and the Commons in Data Driven Medicine. Openness and the Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights\",\"authors\":\"K. Sideri\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/scipol/scaa011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scholars who point to political influences and the regulatory function of patent courts in the U.S. have long questioned the courts’ subjective interpretation of what ‘things’ can be claimed as inventions. The present article sheds light on a different but related facet: the role of the courts in regulating knowledge production. I argue that the recent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, which made diagnostics and software very difficult to patent and which attracted criticism for a wealth of different reasons, are fine case studies of the current debate over the proper role of the state in regulating the marketplace and knowledge production in the emerging information economy. The article explains that these patents are prospect patents that may be used by a monopolist to collect data that everybody else needs in order to compete effectively. As such, they raise familiar concerns about failure of coordination emerging as a result of a monopolist controlling a resource such as datasets that others need and cannot replicate. In effect, the courts regulated the market, primarily focusing on ensuring the free flow of data in the emerging marketplace very much in the spirit of the ‘free the data’ language in various policy initiatives, yet at the same time with an eye to boost downstream innovation. In doing so, these decisions essentially endorse practices of personal information processing which constitute a new type of public domain: a source of raw materials which are there for the taking and which have become most important inputs to commercial activity. From this vantage point of view, the legal interpretation of the private and the shared legitimizes a model of data extraction from individuals, the raw material of information capitalism, that will fuel the next generation of data intensive therapeutics in the field of data driven medicine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":230649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

指出美国专利法院的政治影响和监管功能的学者长期以来一直质疑法院对哪些“东西”可以被称为发明的主观解释。本文揭示了一个不同但相关的方面:法院在规范知识生产中的作用。我认为,最近由美国最高法院和联邦巡回法院裁决的案件,使得诊断和软件很难获得专利,并因各种不同的原因引起了批评,是当前关于国家在新兴信息经济中规范市场和知识生产中的适当角色的辩论的很好的案例研究。这篇文章解释说,这些专利是有前景的专利,可能被垄断者用来收集其他人为了有效竞争而需要的数据。因此,他们提出了熟悉的担忧,即由于垄断者控制了其他人需要且无法复制的资源(如数据集),从而出现协调失败。实际上,法院对市场进行了监管,主要集中在确保新兴市场中数据的自由流动,这与各种政策举措中“释放数据”语言的精神非常相似,但同时也着眼于促进下游创新。在这样做的过程中,这些决定基本上认可了个人信息处理的做法,这些做法构成了一种新型的公共领域:一种可供获取的原材料来源,这些原材料已成为商业活动中最重要的投入。从这个有利的角度来看,对私人和共享的法律解释使从个人中提取数据的模型合法化,这是信息资本主义的原材料,这将推动数据驱动医学领域的下一代数据密集型治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Prospect Patents, Data Markets and the Commons in Data Driven Medicine. Openness and the Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights
Scholars who point to political influences and the regulatory function of patent courts in the U.S. have long questioned the courts’ subjective interpretation of what ‘things’ can be claimed as inventions. The present article sheds light on a different but related facet: the role of the courts in regulating knowledge production. I argue that the recent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, which made diagnostics and software very difficult to patent and which attracted criticism for a wealth of different reasons, are fine case studies of the current debate over the proper role of the state in regulating the marketplace and knowledge production in the emerging information economy. The article explains that these patents are prospect patents that may be used by a monopolist to collect data that everybody else needs in order to compete effectively. As such, they raise familiar concerns about failure of coordination emerging as a result of a monopolist controlling a resource such as datasets that others need and cannot replicate. In effect, the courts regulated the market, primarily focusing on ensuring the free flow of data in the emerging marketplace very much in the spirit of the ‘free the data’ language in various policy initiatives, yet at the same time with an eye to boost downstream innovation. In doing so, these decisions essentially endorse practices of personal information processing which constitute a new type of public domain: a source of raw materials which are there for the taking and which have become most important inputs to commercial activity. From this vantage point of view, the legal interpretation of the private and the shared legitimizes a model of data extraction from individuals, the raw material of information capitalism, that will fuel the next generation of data intensive therapeutics in the field of data driven medicine.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Role of Law in End-of-Life Decision-Making: Perspectives of Patients, Substitute Decision-Makers and Families Phasing Out Certificate-of-Need Laws: A Menu of Options Prospect Patents, Data Markets and the Commons in Data Driven Medicine. Openness and the Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights Grandma Got Run Over by the Doctor: An Examination of the End of Life Choice Bill with Reference to the German Approach Credit, Default, and Optimal Health Insurance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1