Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Patenting Foundational Technologies: Lessons From CRISPR and Other Core Biotechnologies".
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Patenting Foundational Technologies: Lessons From CRISPR and Other Core Biotechnologies".
复制标题
对“基础技术专利申请：CRISPR 和其他核心生物技术的教训”的公开同行评论的回应。
DOI：
10.1080/15265161.2018.1538395
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Feeney O
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Feeney O
我们向所有对我们的文章发表评论的人以及AJOB的编辑们表示诚挚的感谢，感谢他们允许我们发表评论。Boggio和Ho(2018)的评论集中在获得重要科学发展的“人权”方面。我们同意，人权分析也为政府采取行动提供了依据，但我们认为，需要将实现知识产权法律必要的“灵活性”的具体建议摆在桌面上--我们认为我们已经这样做了。我们辩称，改进可以是自愿的，也可以是强加的，而对自愿的依赖是不够的。我们辩称，强制改进可能涉及什么可以申请专利，哪些活动可以被侵犯，以及专利权可以保持多长时间的排他性。我们已经讨论了这些问题，并就我们认为专利应允许的排他性范围提出了建议。我们认为，作者认为我们的方法与他们的方法之间的差异并不像他们声称的那样大。毕竟，作者提到的“灵活性”和“重新校准”也要求限制专利的实施。
We express our sincere thanks to all those who submitted comments on our article and to the editors of AJOB for allowing us to comment in reply. Boggio and Ho's (2018) comment is centered on the" human rights" aspect of access to important scientific developments. We agree that a human rights analysis also provides grounds for government action, but consider that concrete proposals for the achievement of the necessary" flexibilities" in intellectual property (IP) laws need to be placed on the table-something that we feel we have done. We have argued that improvement could be voluntary or imposed and that reliance on the voluntary is insufficient. We have argued that imposed improvement could be in terms of what can be patented, what activities can be infringements, and how long the patent rights can remain exclusive. We have discussed these and made proposals on the extent of the exclusivities patents, in our view, should permit. We feel that the differences that the authors identify between our approach and theirs are not as large as they claim. After all, the" flexibilities" and the" recalibration" that the authors refer to also require limiting the enforcement of patents.