Sunday, October 29, 2006

Promises of patent royalties from Proposition 71?

Although the Lysaght paper mentions economic benefit to California through "royalty income" [page 112], it did not mention or cite the study by Laurence Baker (Stanford) and Bruce Deal which was discussed by the Sacramento Bee on September 15, 2004:

The study also predicted the state could collect $537 million to $1.1 billion from patents and royalties resulting from successful research funded by the initiative.

The Bee also reported:

The biggest boost for the state would come from reduced health care costs of $3.4 billion to $6.9 billion annually, according to the study.

Laurence Baker, a Stanford University health research and policy professor, and Bruce Deal, managing principal of the Analysis Group Inc., conducted the study and said those savings would come from treatments or cures for just six of the 70 diseases and conditions scientists believe stem cell research could help alleviate.

The diseases they considered are among the most common and most likely to generate big savings: strokes, insulin-dependent diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries and heart attacks.

Opponents say such claims are highly speculative because embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce any treatments or cures.

As IPBiz reported previously, Laurence Baker was present at the Princeton hosted symposium on the policy and economic implications of state-funded stem cell research.
IPBiz noted: Baker and Deal's section begins at page 51. At page 70, there is an erroneous mention of the "17 year life" of a patent. Patent royalty revenue comes up on pages 70 and 71.

IPBiz now queries: how "expert" are those who don't even know what the lifetime of a US patent is?


Post a Comment

<< Home