1,721,042 research outputs found
The politics of patents and drugs in Brazil and Mexico: the industrial bases of health policies
No full textGlobalization, intellectual property rights, and pharmaceuticals: meeting the challenges to addressing health gaps in the new international environment
No full text
Who benefits? An empirical analysis of Australian and US patent ownership
Full text linkPublic choice theory provides a parsimonious explanation of changes in public policy,
yet there is little systematic data available about the major beneficiaries of patent systems. This paper uses data from the US and Australia to identify those companies which own the largest number of patents from applications made between 1990 and 2001. In both countries the 100 companies owning the most patents own about one-third of all patents owned by organisations. Forty-six companies—many of them household names—are among both the top 100 US patenters and the top 100 Australian patenters.
Forty-six companies are on both lists. Among the top 100 US patenters, 43 are US based.
In Australia only one of the top 100 patenters is an Australian company. Major
patenters are selective in the technologies they patent in Australia—few semi-conductor
companies take out Australian patents, while pharmaceuticals and chemicals have a
larger share than in the USA.
Twelve of the 13 companies that played a major role in the development of the TRIPS
agenda have been among the top 100 US patenters. However data on the top 10 US
patenters from 1969 to 2006 show that since the mid 1980s—the very time when US
patent policy was extending to achieve a global reach—overseas companies replaced
US companies as the dominant US patenters.Crawford Schoo
Politics of intellectual property: contestation over the ownership, use, and control of knowledge and information
No full textThe political economy of hemispheric integration: responding to globalization in the Americas
No full textBenefiting from a truly Pan-American perspective, these essays evaluate the economics and politics of the new patterns of North-South integration in the particular context of the Americas, questioning if regional and bilateral trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA or the FTAA are appropriate mechanisms to promote economic development
Accelerating pooled licensing of medicines to enhance global production and equitable access
No full textIn 2021, pharmaceutical firms Merck and Pfizer licensed their new COVID-19 oral antiviral medications to the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). In both cases, the drugs were licensed quickly, before they were launched, and the MPP then reached agreements with pharmaceutical firms across the globe to provide generic versions of both drugs to poorer countries. This Viewpoint examines the significance of these licenses for global production and access of new medicines, in the pandemic and beyond. I place the recent MPP licenses in the context of the agency’s history since 2010, when it was created, and I discuss the significance of the new licenses. In doing so I show how the MPP's role is changing, pointing to the political conditions that may make originator firms more inclined to license their products quickly to the MPP, and I discuss how public policy can build on the opportunity created by these conditions to promote this further with the introduction of a prize mechanism
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
