Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

Changing the rules of the game: addressing the conflict between free access to scientific discovery and intellectual property rights

Nature Biotechnology volume 28, pages 137–140 (2010)Cite this article

Subjects

A provisional patented paper application procedure could promote earlier disclosure of novel scientific knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: A graphical outline demonstrating how the PPPA procedure can be practically employed.

References

  1. Andrews, L.B. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3, 803–808 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Caulfield, T., Cook-Deegan, R.M., Kieff, F.S. & Walsh, J.P. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1091–1094 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook-Deegan, R., Chandrasekharan, S. & Angrist, M. Nature 458, 405–406 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cukier, K.N. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 249–251 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. David, P.A. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 160, 9–34 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Eisenberg, R.S. Yale LJ 97, 177–231 [225] (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Holman, C.M. Trends Biotechnol. 25, 539–543 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Heller, M.A. & Eisenberg, R.S. Science 280, 698–701 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Shapiro, C. in Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1 (eds. Jaffe, A.B., Lerner, J. & Stern, C.) 577–579 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Merz, J.F., Kriss, A.G., Leonard, D.G.B. & Cho, M.K. Nature 415, 577–579 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E.G., Anderson, M.S., Causino, N. & Louis, K.S. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 277, 1224–1228 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schissel, A., Merz, J.F. & Cho, M.K. Nature 402, 118 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Campbell, E.G. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287, 473–480 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Grushcow, J.M. J. Leg. Stud. 33, 59–84 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Murray, F. & Stern, S. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 63, 648–687 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 35 US Code § 112, 113.

  17. Walsh, J.P., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Science 309, 2002–2003 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Brenner v. Manson 383 US (1996), 519, 534.

  19. Vitronics Corp v. Conceptronic Inc. 90 F3d (Fed. Cir. 1996), 1576, 1583.

  20. Fromer, J.C. Iowa Law Rev. 94, 539–606 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Long, P. Univ. Chic. Law Rev. 69, 625–680 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 35 US Code § 102(b).

  23. Tokkyo Ho [Patent Law] § 30(31) & 30(33).

  24. Anonymous. European Patent Convention. Article 54 (European Patent Office, Munich, 1973).

  25. Benowitz, S. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94, 80–81 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Borger, J. Rush to patent genes stalls cures for disease. Guardian (London) 15 December 1999, p.1.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Williams-Jones, B. Health Law J. 10, 123–146 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Caulfield, T., Gold, E.R. & Cho, M.K. Nat. Rev. Genet. 1, 227–231 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Fabrizio, K.R. & Di Minin, A. Res. Policy 37, 914–931 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Petherbridge, L. Maine Law Rev. 59, 339–384 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bagley, M.A. Boston Coll. Law Rev. 47, 217–274 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ebersole, T.J., Guthrie, M.N. & Goldstein, J.A. Intellect. Prop. Technol. Law J. 17, 6–13 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Franzoni, C. & Scellato, G. Proc. Acad. Innov. Entrepreneurship 2008, 388–401 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Anonymous. Federal Register. 73, 47535, 47540 (2008).

  35. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/provapp.htm

  36. 35 US Code § 119(e), 120.

  37. 35 US Code § 102(e).

  38. 35 US Code § 111(b).

  39. 35 US Code § 112 (first paragraph).

  40. Axelrod, R. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 75, 306–318 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rapoport, A. in Game Theory as a Theory of Conflict Resolution (ed. Rapoport, A.) 17–34 (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1974).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Cipra, B. Science 261, 162–163 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Skevington, P.J. & Hart, T.P. BT Technol. J. 15, 39–44 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. http://www.digistamp.com/FAQts.htm#legality

  45. Feng, H. & Wah, C.C. Inf. Manage. Comput. Secur. 10, 159–164 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. http://www.guardtime.com; http://www.digistamp.com

  47. Tananbaum, G. & Holmes, L. Learn. Publ. 21, 300–306 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wood, D. Learn. Publ. 14, 151–158 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Locke, J. in Two Treatises of Government (ed. Lasslet, P.) Second Treatise §5 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Machan, T.R. in Liberty for the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Libertarian Thought (ed. Machan, T.R.) 209–226 (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Narveson, J. in Liberty for the Twenty-First Century: Contemporary Libertarian Thought (ed. Machan, T.R.) 19–40 (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nozick, R. Anarchy, State and Utopia (Basic Books, New York, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hailwood, S.A. Exploring Nozick: Beyond Anarchy, State and Utopia (Avebury, Aldershot, UK, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Zvi Bentwich and Isaac (Zahon) Bentwich for their invaluable comments on a previous version of this article. I also thank Moshe Maor and Avner de-Shalit for preliminary discussions regarding the article's theme. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the Lady Davis Trust at the Hebrew University for its generous financial support that enabled the pursuit of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Miriam Bentwich is in the Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel.,

    Miriam Bentwich

Authors
  1. Miriam Bentwich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miriam Bentwich.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bentwich, M. Changing the rules of the game: addressing the conflict between free access to scientific discovery and intellectual property rights. Nat Biotechnol 28, 137–140 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0210-137

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0210-137

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research