More on WARF and CIRM
submitted to The Scientist on November 3:
Of the text --But WARF need to look at the bigger picture. Academics and companies should not be wasting valuable research dollars on licenses-- one notes that, if CIRM were directing efforts purely to RESEARCH activities
#1. WARF would not be bothering with them, and
#2. Even if WARF did seek licenses from research entities, it would be a futile gesture, as the Supreme Court's interpretation of 35 USC 271(e)(1) in Merck v. Integra insulates activities related to obtaining information for the FDA, which would be the case here, and
#3. Even if WARF tested the waters against CIRM, the case against CIRM (a California state agency) would be held, pursuant to Florida Prepaid Postsecondary, in a California forum.
This issue is NOT about "freedom to do research" but about "how much money" will go to WARF, and "how much money" will go to CIRM.
More details of the assertions made by PubPat / FTCR in the re-examination request may be found at IPBiz.blogspot, including
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/08/on-obviousness-challenge-to-warfs-780.html
****This comment pertains to an editorial in The Scientist by Richard Gallagher:
(...)
The USPTO's review [the re-examination] is happening none too soon. The bad news is that it will likely take several years to conduct-the PTOs chronic underfunding is something else that needs attention. Further bad news is that WARF have deep pockets and look set to mount a vigorous defense.
It's possible to see things from WARF's point of view: They are following the rules and the income is plainly being put to good use. But WARF need to look at the bigger picture. Academics and companies should not be wasting valuable research dollars on licenses. And if WARF compound the insult by squandering millions of dollars on legal fees they will not be readily forgiven. We'll continue to follow this story in our daily news.
Patents are a good thing. In general, they promote progress by encouraging research and development with incentives. But sometimes, they over-reach, and they impede progress rather than help it. This is one of those cases. The WARF patents point up the sometimes uncomfortable conflict between intellectual property rights and scientific freedom that many of our readers often feel as they find their way in the funding environment of the 21st century.
Of the text --But WARF need to look at the bigger picture. Academics and companies should not be wasting valuable research dollars on licenses-- one notes that, if CIRM were directing efforts purely to RESEARCH activities
#1. WARF would not be bothering with them, and
#2. Even if WARF did seek licenses from research entities, it would be a futile gesture, as the Supreme Court's interpretation of 35 USC 271(e)(1) in Merck v. Integra insulates activities related to obtaining information for the FDA, which would be the case here, and
#3. Even if WARF tested the waters against CIRM, the case against CIRM (a California state agency) would be held, pursuant to Florida Prepaid Postsecondary, in a California forum.
This issue is NOT about "freedom to do research" but about "how much money" will go to WARF, and "how much money" will go to CIRM.
More details of the assertions made by PubPat / FTCR in the re-examination request may be found at IPBiz.blogspot, including
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/08/on-obviousness-challenge-to-warfs-780.html
****This comment pertains to an editorial in The Scientist by Richard Gallagher:
(...)
The USPTO's review [the re-examination] is happening none too soon. The bad news is that it will likely take several years to conduct-the PTOs chronic underfunding is something else that needs attention. Further bad news is that WARF have deep pockets and look set to mount a vigorous defense.
It's possible to see things from WARF's point of view: They are following the rules and the income is plainly being put to good use. But WARF need to look at the bigger picture. Academics and companies should not be wasting valuable research dollars on licenses. And if WARF compound the insult by squandering millions of dollars on legal fees they will not be readily forgiven. We'll continue to follow this story in our daily news.
Patents are a good thing. In general, they promote progress by encouraging research and development with incentives. But sometimes, they over-reach, and they impede progress rather than help it. This is one of those cases. The WARF patents point up the sometimes uncomfortable conflict between intellectual property rights and scientific freedom that many of our readers often feel as they find their way in the funding environment of the 21st century.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 5:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home