About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Docs at BIO: Panel Session on Recent Supreme Court Patent Decisions | Main | USPTO Proposes Change in Duty of Disclosure »

July 20, 2011

Comments

Don, yet again I marvel at your reserve in refraining from comment when reporting some of these bills.

Regarding the Schultz bill, is the director of the USPTO the best-situated person to carry out the study she's proposing? I don't think anyone at the PTO has expertise in providing health care to patients. And does the bill include funding provisions, or if enacted is the funding for this study going to come from those fees left over after the House has diverted the rest to pork, at the expense of the PTO's ability to operate in its area of competence, viz. patent examination?

Biotech, Pharma, and Ag must love Schultz, Sanders, and Kaptur.

Dan:

H.R. 2276, S. 1137, S. 1138, and H.R. 307 have a combined total of 0 co-sponsors, so it is easy to remain objective. As for H.R. 2276, it does not have any funding provisions (neither does the parallel provisions of H.R. 1249).

Thanks for the comment.

Don

Rodney,

Amen to your comment. These folks in Congress seem expect something for nothing. That's not going to encourage Biotech, Pharma or Ag to pour large amounts of money into research, only to get an inadequate return on that investment because of what is effectively "compulsory licensing."

"patent reform"

The bill recently passed by the House and Senate is nothing less than another monumental federal giveaway for banks, huge multinationals, and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America.

Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is. Even the leading patent expert in China has stated the bill will help them steal our inventions. Who are the supporters of this bill working for??

Patent reform is a fraud on America. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large multinational corporations maintain their monopolies by robbing and killing their small entity and startup competitors (so it will do exactly what the large multinationals paid for) and with them the jobs they would have created. Yet small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” This bill is a wholesale slaughter of US jobs. Those wishing to help in the fight to defeat this bill should contact us as below.

Small entities and inventors have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors.

Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
http://docs.piausa.org/

"The legislation specifies that "[a]ny person who plants patented seed or seed derived from patented seed may retain seed from the harvest of the planted seed for replanting," provided that the person retaining such seed "submits to the Secretary of Agriculture notice, in such form as the Secretary may require, of the type and quantity of seed to be retained," and "pays the fee established by the Secretary." "


W T F? repeated 10x.

So instead of simply oh, I don't know, allowing farmers to use the seed that comes from the seed they bought (i.e. the "right" thing to do) they'd rather have the sec collect fees and pay them to the patent holders?

THE BEST CORRUPTION MONEY CAN BUY.

"H.R. 2276, S. 1137, S. 1138, and H.R. 307 have a combined total of 0 co-sponsors"

Thank go d for small miracles eh?


In May, Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT) introduced the Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act (S. 1137), which is intended "[t]o provide incentives for investment in research and development for new medicines, [and] to enhance access to new medicines." The bill would accomplish these objectives by establishing a Medical Innovation Prize Fund (equal to 0.55% of the gross domestic product -- or $80,000,000,000 in 2011) and "by eliminating legal monopolies on the manufacture, distribution, and sale of . . . medicines." Section 5 of the bill, entitled "Elimination of Exclusive Rights to Market Drug and Biological Products," states that "no person shall have the right to exclusively manufacture, distribute, sell, or use a drug, a biological product, or a manufacturing process for a drug or biological product in interstate commerce."

On the other hand we have this chap with a good idea and yet not much support. I guess he couldn't get the bio lobby on his side :(


The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31