> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 2:59 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: Drug patents > > >Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > > > > Dan asked me a ways back about who held the most > > > patents on new drugs: here is why I do not believe > > > that drug companies are the primary source of > > > innovation. > > > > > > There is an article in the WSJ today about a > > lawsuit > > > between Eli Lilly vs 2 former NIH researchers; I > > do > > > not have it on-line, and the site below has to do > > with > > > an earlier lawsuit involving the same drug. > > > I read through your examples, and I see a rather > > different pattern than you > > do. I think we have different understandings of the > > nature of purpose of > > patents and the way they have been used as a means > > to foster private innovation. > > <snip most> > > For an invention to be patented, it has to include a > > novelty. > > Those researchers didn't think of patenting; they were > working on an interesting (to them) problem. You can > certainly accuse them of naivety (sp?), but without > their input, the drug would not have been developed by > the company.
I couldn't get that article, but got a different one that describes the dispute at the The American Association for the Advancement of Science website. Lilly claimed that Crabtree & Plutzky didn't actually produce a Protein C gene, only a fragment. The initial court ruling was in Lilly's favor. I don't know how this will play out. But, I'd guess that the two scientists are well represented by a law team that will be paid handsomely if they win. It's certainly not an ideal system, but in principal, if they developed the gene, they should get the money. If they were one of a team that did this, they should get part of the money. If the people working with them learned a lot about gene splicing in general from them and then went on to develop the gene, then they probably don't have a claim. I'm not sure what this proves, in general, besides the known flaw in a system where people ordinarily skilled in the art are not the ones making the decisions. >> This is true even if it is dependant on work that >> has been patented. The rules are that all known prior art must >> be given in the patent application. > > That is one issue. If it is a significant one, it should invalidate the patent. I'd have to see the patent itself to have a feel for how well Lilly covered their behind when they applied. > > The second company cannot > > manufacture panels without dealing with the first > > company. > > A further elaboration of the issue for these > scientists; that didn't happen (they claim; recall > that one only got PO'd when Lilly asked him to testify > against another researcher). > > So are you saying that if government researchers make > a discovery, drug companies should pay the gov't > something to use that technique (in this case, > something to do with human gene splicing)? I see no a priori reason that governmental researchers cannot patent techniques the same way that university and private researchers can. It may not be governmental policy. Still, I know the government is now charging fees to recoup costs elsewhere, so that may be changing. One question, though, is how suited governmental labs are to developing practical innovations. Historically, doing neat things because they are neat or because one can advance knowledge with them, and publish, has been a strength of governmental research. Practical innovations have not. The moral of the story is, to me, that when a company asks people at a national lab for help, IP issues should be resolved up front. > So if gov't researchers _on their own time_ come up > with something novel, they should be 'owners' of that? There is no "on your own time" when one is employed. If they were self-employed contractors, like I am, then it would be different. However, if they, on their own time, came up with an idea that was strongly related to paid work that they were doing, the argument that it was "on their own time" would be weak. I have an invention that I'm looking at selling, but I invented it while doing no work in the area. If I'm asked to work in that area, I mention the IP issue up front, offer to talk about it after non-disclosure agreements are signed. > Lilly *requested help from those specific NIH > researchers, (who were innovative in human gene > splicing/isolation, as opposed to the company's > researchers who were competent with mouse DNA but not > human - IIRC)* who gave it, and got neither > recognition nor recompense. I'm rather surprised that the IP issues were completely ignored back then. If I were with Lilly, I'd pay people extra to make sure that all patent rights would be signed over. > I have no beef with companies making decent profits > from their work; I have massive problems with > companies 'stealing' knowledge from others, be they > gov't, university or other company researchers, and > making a killing off that. With regard to medical > breakthroughs, that latter can be literal. You know, I just thought of something. If government and university research are really larger players than I think, then there shouldn't be much of a problem with the low profits involved in infectious diseases. They would simply be the province of the non-profit researchers, who are perfectly capable of coming up with breakthroughs. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
