On 6/7/97, Dan Agin <specpress[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I will amplify the above for the non-specialist. "Biotechnology" is
> a small branch of biological science devoted to technology
> development, and most biotechnologists, like many attorneys, are
> employed by corporations, which gives them a particular slant on
> these questions.
I'm not at all certain that "most biotechnologists" are "employed by corporations." The majority of biotech patents that I have handled were directed to inventions developed in university laboratories, and later commercialized. In the case of DBCs (dedicated biotechnology companies), almost all began as academic research spinoffs, with pervasive involvlement (and ownership) of university researchers.
> We are beginning an era of explosive growth of
> commercialized biotechnology, and the burden of looking after the
> public interest must fall on the legal community, attorneys, the
> courts, and legislators. If present IP law is so written that it
> allows privatization of what should not be privatized, then IP law
> should be changed -- and the changing must be done by the legal
> profession.
I am afraid that that your criteria for "what should not be privatized" is unclear to me. However, it *is* quite clear that we would not be in the beginning of a period of explosive biotechnology growth were it not for "present IP law."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:26 GMT