Law in Contemporary Society

View   r11  >  r10  ...
JustinColannino-FirstPaper 11 - 14 Feb 2008 - Main.JustinColannino
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper%25"

Forced pooling as a solution to the tragedy of the anticommmons in patent law

Line: 8 to 8
 Heller and Eisenberg establish three main hurdles that must be overcome to prevent tragedy in the Biomedical anticommons, which can be extended to patents in general. These are the high transaction costs of bundling rights, conflicting goals of rights holders and rights holders overvaluing of their piece of the resource.
Changed:
<
<		While some view this situation as one with a free market solution [6], others think that this is a pitfall in the current system and thus an area ripe for government intervention [7]. Proposed solutions range from surplanting the right to exclude with liability rules [1] to giving free compulsory licenses for experimental use [8].
>
>		While some view this situation as one with a free market solution [6], others think that this is a pitfall in the current system and thus an area ripe for government intervention [7]. Proposed solutions range from supplanting the right to exclude with liability rules [1] to giving free compulsory licenses for experimental use [8].
 

Government seizure as a solution to the tragedy

Changed:
<
<		Government seizure is not a new idea. Seizure has been a useful way for government to overcome high transactions costs, hold-outs or parties unwilling to release their rights at any cost in the building of roads and other public works for centuries. The use of seizure is specifically allowed for the public good with fair compensation in the fifth amendment of the US constitution, and a recent supreme court case has held that siezed property can go into private hands as long as its use is for the public good [9].
>
>		Government seizure is not a new idea. Seizure has been a useful way for government to overcome high transactions costs, hold-outs or parties unwilling to release their rights at any cost in the building of roads and other public works for centuries. The use of seizure is specifically allowed for the public good with fair compensation in the fifth amendment of the US constitution, and a recent supreme court case has held that seized property can go into private hands as long as its use is for the public good [9].
 The standard argument for granting patent holders the right to exclude is that it is an incentive to innovate. Thus, the argument goes, removing that right will chill innovation as patents will become less valuable because of the taking of rights. Our solution tries to walk the line between ensuring incentives for innovation and decreasing the hurdles and tolls that an innovator needs to take advantage of the protected ideas in downstream research.

Revision 11r11 - 14 Feb 2008 - 18:21:25 - JustinColannino
Revision 10r10 - 14 Feb 2008 - 17:09:46 - JustinColannino
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM