Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
*This page is referenced in the [[Patent Thicket Literature Review]]
*This page is listed on the [[PTLR Core Papers]] page
==Reference==
*Epstein, Richard A and Kuhlik, Bruce N (2004), "Is there a biomedical anticommons", Regulation, Vol.27, pp.54
@article{epstein2004there,
title={Is there a biomedical anticommons},
author={Epstein, Richard A and Kuhlik, Bruce N},
journal={Regulation},
volume={27},
pages={54},
year={2004},
abstract={Six years ago in science, Michael Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg asked the disarmingly simple question whether patent protection could deter biomedical research. They treated patent protection as a two-edged sword: Happily, it spurs innovation by securing to inventors the fruits of their labors but, unhappily, it also creates a vast thicket that gives each patent holder a potential veto right over the innovations of others. They dubbed that potentially dangerous veto right "the tragedy of the anticommons." According to Heller and Eisenberg, that tragedy occurs when property rights are too strong and too many people can block some productive venture... We think that Heller and Eisenberg have overstated the case against patent protection at both the theoretical and empirical levels. The number of patents filed in recent years has continued to move sharply upward across the board. We see no reason to believe that the sole or dominant purpose for individual patentees is to block innovations by others...},
discipline={Law},
research_type={Discussion},
industry={Biomedial},
thicket_stance={},
thicket_stance_extract={},
thicket_def={},
thicket_def_extract={},
tags={Anticommons, Gains from Innovation},
filename={Epstein Kuhlik (2004) - Is There A Biomedical Anticommons.pdf}
}
==File(s)==
*[[Media:Epstein Kuhlik (2004) - Is There A Biomedical Anticommons.pdf|Download the PDF]]
*[[:Image:Epstein Kuhlik (2004) - Is There A Biomedical Anticommons.pdf|Repository record]]
==Abstract==
Six years ago in science, Michael Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg asked the disarmingly simple question whether patent protection could deter biomedical research. They treated patent protection as a two-edged sword: Happily, it spurs innovation by securing to inventors the fruits of their labors but, unhappily, it also creates a vast thicket that gives each patent holder a potential veto right over the innovations of others. They dubbed that potentially dangerous veto right "the tragedy of the anticommons." According to Heller and Eisenberg, that tragedy occurs when property rights are too strong and too many people can block some productive venture... We think that Heller and Eisenberg have overstated the case against patent protection at both the theoretical and empirical levels. The number of patents filed in recent years has continued to move sharply upward across the board. We see no reason to believe that the sole or dominant purpose for individual patentees is to block innovations by others...
Epstein Kuhlik (2004) - Is There A Biomedical Anticommons (view source)
Revision as of 17:33, 18 March 2013
, 17:33, 18 March 2013no edit summary
*This page is referenced in the [[Patent Thicket Literature Review]]
*This page is listed on the [[PTLR Core Papers]] page
==Reference==
*Epstein, Richard A and Kuhlik, Bruce N (2004), "Is there a biomedical anticommons", Regulation, Vol.27, pp.54
@article{epstein2004there,
title={Is there a biomedical anticommons},
author={Epstein, Richard A and Kuhlik, Bruce N},
journal={Regulation},
volume={27},
pages={54},
year={2004},
abstract={Six years ago in science, Michael Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg asked the disarmingly simple question whether patent protection could deter biomedical research. They treated patent protection as a two-edged sword: Happily, it spurs innovation by securing to inventors the fruits of their labors but, unhappily, it also creates a vast thicket that gives each patent holder a potential veto right over the innovations of others. They dubbed that potentially dangerous veto right "the tragedy of the anticommons." According to Heller and Eisenberg, that tragedy occurs when property rights are too strong and too many people can block some productive venture... We think that Heller and Eisenberg have overstated the case against patent protection at both the theoretical and empirical levels. The number of patents filed in recent years has continued to move sharply upward across the board. We see no reason to believe that the sole or dominant purpose for individual patentees is to block innovations by others...},
discipline={Law},
research_type={Discussion},
industry={Biomedial},
thicket_stance={},
thicket_stance_extract={},
thicket_def={},
thicket_def_extract={},
tags={Anticommons, Gains from Innovation},
filename={Epstein Kuhlik (2004) - Is There A Biomedical Anticommons.pdf}
}
==File(s)==
*[[Media:Epstein Kuhlik (2004) - Is There A Biomedical Anticommons.pdf|Download the PDF]]
*[[:Image:Epstein Kuhlik (2004) - Is There A Biomedical Anticommons.pdf|Repository record]]
==Abstract==
Six years ago in science, Michael Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg asked the disarmingly simple question whether patent protection could deter biomedical research. They treated patent protection as a two-edged sword: Happily, it spurs innovation by securing to inventors the fruits of their labors but, unhappily, it also creates a vast thicket that gives each patent holder a potential veto right over the innovations of others. They dubbed that potentially dangerous veto right "the tragedy of the anticommons." According to Heller and Eisenberg, that tragedy occurs when property rights are too strong and too many people can block some productive venture... We think that Heller and Eisenberg have overstated the case against patent protection at both the theoretical and empirical levels. The number of patents filed in recent years has continued to move sharply upward across the board. We see no reason to believe that the sole or dominant purpose for individual patentees is to block innovations by others...
