Graham Dutfield

Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries: Past, Present and Future

This book is a highly readable and entertaining account of the co-evolution of the patent system and the life science industries since the mid-19th century. The pharmaceutical industries have their origins in advances in synthetic chemistry and in natural products research. Both approaches to drug discovery and business have shaped patent law, as have the lobbying activities of the firms involved and their supporters in the legal profession. In turn, patent law has impacted on the life science industries. Compared to the first edition, which told this story for the first time, the present edition focuses more on specific businesses, products and technologies, including Bayer, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, aspirin, penicillin, monoclonal antibodies and polymerase chain reaction. Another difference is that this second edition also looks into the future, addressing new areas such as systems biology, stem cell research, and synthetic biology, which promises to enable scientists to “invent” life forms from scratch.

Harmonisation or differentiation in intellectual property protection? The lessons of history

Developing countries find themselves pressured to harmonise their intellectual property (IP) standards so that they match those of the United States, Europe and Japan. This article provides historical evidence to support the authors’ claim that when developed countries demand that the rest of the world adopt their current IP regulations, developed countries are preventing other countries from adopting appropriate patent and copyright standards for their levels of development. Developed countries thereby deny a freedom to others that they themselves enjoyed when they were developing.

DNA patenting: implications for public health research

I weigh the arguments for and against the patenting of functional DNA sequences including genes, and find the objections to be compelling. Is an outright ban on DNA patenting the right policy response? Not necessarily. Governments may wish to consider options ranging from patent law reforms to the creation of new rights. There are alternative ways to protect DNA sequences that industry may choose if DNA patenting is restricted or banned. Some of these alternatives may be more harmful than patents. Such unintended consequences of patent bans mean that we should think hard before concluding that prohibition is the only response to legitimate concerns about the appropriateness of patents in the field of human genomics.

Promoting Local Innovation as a Development Strategy: Innovations Case Discussion: The Honey Bee Network

those best able to produce, acquire, deploy, and control valuable knowledge. Knowledge, especially new knowledge unavailable to one’s rivals, is key to international competitiveness and therefore to national prosperity. This assumption is simplistic and not entirely accurate. Oil-rich Qatar and Brunei can do quite nicely without having to be creative at all, except perhaps in finding the best ways to invest their income. But India is mired in poverty that may take generations to eliminate, despite Bollywood, its impressive and rapidly expanding software industry, and its sizeable and growing biotechnological capacity in relation to its GNP. Nonetheless, this assumption is fervently held by many policymakers around the world. As the United Kingdom government expresses it, for example, the nation’s economic competitiveness, and that of its competitors, “is increasingly driven by knowledge-based industries, especially in manufacturing, science-based sectors and the creative industries.” Such thinking is hardly new, but has not necessarily inspired policies conducive to innovation. In the middle ages, Venetian glass was renowned for its quality and generated great wealth for the city state. Understandably, this made the government desperate to protect its highly valuable know-how. The glassmakers, whose techniques were acquired partly from Germany and Syria, were forbidden to ply their trade outside the city state or to give away their secrets. Transgressors could lose their lives. At the same time, foreign glassmakers were banned from operating there. It may not be entirely coincidental that Venice was the first place in the world to pass legislation providing patents for inventions; it understood the strategic importance of protecting valuable knowledge. But neither should we be surprised that despite its illustrious history and the persistence of its now small glass industry, the city has long been a glorified open-air museum sinking slowly but inexorably into genteel decline—and into the Adriatic. Historically, Venetian-style “knowledge mercantilism” has not been uncommon. But valuable as new or scarce technical knowledge can undoubtedly be for

Innovation Without Patents

A question the book considers is how far legal protection should extend to inventions that may only just, or indeed not quite, meet the conventional criteria for patentability, in terms of the level of inventiveness. Innovation without Patents offers a thoughtful and empirically rich analysis of the current system in a number of developed and developing countries in the Asia-Pacific. It asks whether such innovations should remain free from patenting, or whether alternative intellectual property regimes should be offered in such cases, and indeed whether the requirements change depending on a country’s level of development. This discussion is capped by a number of proposed policy options.

Intellectual Property Rights and Gene-Based Technologies for Animal Production and Health

Intellectual property rights (IPR) are legal and institutional devices to protect creations of the mind. With respect to gene-based innovation, the most significant IPR is patents. Appropriate patent regimes have the potential to foster innovation in animal biotechnology and the transfer of gene-based technologies. Inappropriate patent systems may be counter-productive. Indeed, many critics are doubtful that the current international patent standards, based as they are on a combination of the United States of America’ and European regimes, can help countries that lack the capacity to do much life science and biotechnology research to become more innovative or contribute to the acquisition, absorption and, where desirable, the adaptation of new gene-based technologies from outside. Present legislation in Europe, North America and internationally is considered, together with the controversies and important policy questions for developing countries, and the choices facing countries seeking to enhance their scientific and technological capacities in these areas.