前景专利与CRISPR;半公共环境中的竞争和道德许可。

IF 2.5 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2021-10-24 eCollection Date: 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsab031
Andreas Panagopoulos, Katerina Sideri
{"title":"前景专利与CRISPR;半公共环境中的竞争和道德许可。","authors":"Andreas Panagopoulos, Katerina Sideri","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsab031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The prospect theory of patents views patents as a tool for the development and commercialization of inventions. Prospect patents rely on broad control of technology so that rivalry between competing products is diminished thus avoiding waste of common-pool resources. The theory has been widely criticized but in this article we argue that it does not address the realities of an economy where many innovations are created by universities. Although university patents on inventions such as new gene-editing tools fit squarely in the definition of prospect patents, they may still allow rivalry to resurface at the commercialization stage. This rivalry is not between competing firms; it is between competing visions of the prospect: ‘the university’s vision versus the licensees.’ We use as a case study the CRISPR-Cas9 technology invented by universities and commercialized by licensees. We employ patent landscape analysis showing that CRISPR-Cas9’s prospects comply with the characteristics of prospect patents and, above all, diminish rivalry at the commercialization stage. As the lack of competition leads to excessive treatment prices, tensions arise because the licensee understands CRISPR-Cas9 as a revenue-generating prospect, whereas the university views it as a technology requiring broad distribution. Such discerning visions can breed rivalry between licensor and licensee despite broad patent rights. In addressing this we turn to the literature on semi-commons, which implies an environment where private rights of exclusion such as prospect patents work with ethical licenses and a domain of resources open for reuse to foster innovation. We argue that in this environment, universities can emerge as important actors in the regulatory enterprise through additional ex post licensing. To this end, we propose a market-based solution in the form of a license allowing for patent re-licensing if the licensee fails to address a predefined demand for the final product.","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"8 2","pages":"lsab031"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/82/b3/lsab031.PMC8545401.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prospect patents and CRISPR; rivalry and ethical licensing in a semi-commons environment.\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Panagopoulos, Katerina Sideri\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jlb/lsab031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The prospect theory of patents views patents as a tool for the development and commercialization of inventions. Prospect patents rely on broad control of technology so that rivalry between competing products is diminished thus avoiding waste of common-pool resources. The theory has been widely criticized but in this article we argue that it does not address the realities of an economy where many innovations are created by universities. Although university patents on inventions such as new gene-editing tools fit squarely in the definition of prospect patents, they may still allow rivalry to resurface at the commercialization stage. This rivalry is not between competing firms; it is between competing visions of the prospect: ‘the university’s vision versus the licensees.’ We use as a case study the CRISPR-Cas9 technology invented by universities and commercialized by licensees. We employ patent landscape analysis showing that CRISPR-Cas9’s prospects comply with the characteristics of prospect patents and, above all, diminish rivalry at the commercialization stage. As the lack of competition leads to excessive treatment prices, tensions arise because the licensee understands CRISPR-Cas9 as a revenue-generating prospect, whereas the university views it as a technology requiring broad distribution. Such discerning visions can breed rivalry between licensor and licensee despite broad patent rights. In addressing this we turn to the literature on semi-commons, which implies an environment where private rights of exclusion such as prospect patents work with ethical licenses and a domain of resources open for reuse to foster innovation. We argue that in this environment, universities can emerge as important actors in the regulatory enterprise through additional ex post licensing. To this end, we propose a market-based solution in the form of a license allowing for patent re-licensing if the licensee fails to address a predefined demand for the final product.\",\"PeriodicalId\":56266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"volume\":\"8 2\",\"pages\":\"lsab031\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/82/b3/lsab031.PMC8545401.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab031\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab031","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

专利前景理论将专利视为发明开发和商业化的工具。前瞻性专利依赖于对技术的广泛控制,从而减少竞争产品之间的竞争,从而避免浪费公共资源。这一理论受到了广泛的批评,但在本文中,我们认为它没有解决许多创新都是由大学创造的经济现实。尽管大学对新基因编辑工具等发明的专利完全符合前景专利的定义,但它们仍可能使竞争在商业化阶段重新浮出水面。这种竞争不是在相互竞争的公司之间;这是对前景的相互竞争的愿景:“大学的愿景与被许可方的愿景”。我们使用由大学发明并被授权商商业化的CRISPR-Cas9技术作为案例研究。我们采用专利景观分析显示,CRISPR-Cas9的前景符合前景专利的特征,最重要的是,在商业化阶段减少竞争。由于缺乏竞争导致治疗价格过高,紧张局势出现了,因为被许可方认为CRISPR-Cas9是一种创收前景,而大学认为它是一种需要广泛推广的技术。尽管拥有广泛的专利权,但这种敏锐的眼光可能会在许可方和被许可方之间滋生竞争。在解决这个问题时,我们转向关于半公地的文献,这意味着一种环境,在这种环境中,私人的排他权(如前景专利)与道德许可一起工作,并且资源领域开放以供重用以促进创新。我们认为,在这种环境下,通过额外的事后许可,大学可以成为监管企业中的重要参与者。为此,我们提出了一种基于市场的解决方案,以许可的形式允许专利再许可,如果被许可方未能满足对最终产品的预定需求。
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 and CRISPR; rivalry and ethical licensing in a semi-commons environment.
Abstract The prospect theory of patents views patents as a tool for the development and commercialization of inventions. Prospect patents rely on broad control of technology so that rivalry between competing products is diminished thus avoiding waste of common-pool resources. The theory has been widely criticized but in this article we argue that it does not address the realities of an economy where many innovations are created by universities. Although university patents on inventions such as new gene-editing tools fit squarely in the definition of prospect patents, they may still allow rivalry to resurface at the commercialization stage. This rivalry is not between competing firms; it is between competing visions of the prospect: ‘the university’s vision versus the licensees.’ We use as a case study the CRISPR-Cas9 technology invented by universities and commercialized by licensees. We employ patent landscape analysis showing that CRISPR-Cas9’s prospects comply with the characteristics of prospect patents and, above all, diminish rivalry at the commercialization stage. As the lack of competition leads to excessive treatment prices, tensions arise because the licensee understands CRISPR-Cas9 as a revenue-generating prospect, whereas the university views it as a technology requiring broad distribution. Such discerning visions can breed rivalry between licensor and licensee despite broad patent rights. In addressing this we turn to the literature on semi-commons, which implies an environment where private rights of exclusion such as prospect patents work with ethical licenses and a domain of resources open for reuse to foster innovation. We argue that in this environment, universities can emerge as important actors in the regulatory enterprise through additional ex post licensing. To this end, we propose a market-based solution in the form of a license allowing for patent re-licensing if the licensee fails to address a predefined demand for the final product.
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
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
期刊最新文献
How do we justify research into enhanced warfighters? The new EU-US data protection framework's implications for healthcare. The new regulation of non-medical neurotechnologies in the European Union: overview and reflection. Implementing the human right to science in the context of health: introduction to the special issue. Biosimilar approval pathways: comparing the roles of five medicines regulators.
×
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