3 ms·
I imagine the costs of trials, and who paid them, are well documented. In the event of a dispute about which company discovered which drug, could a company not
by michaelq 12y ago
I imagine the costs of trials, and who paid them, are well documented. In the event of a dispute about which company discovered which drug, could a company not point to its investment in research or funding of a specific trial as evidence of its discovery, rather than trying to spam system with provisional patent applications? (By the way, there's no such thing as a "provisional patent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_patent#cite_note-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_patent#cite_note-1)
- teachingaway 12y ago>> By the way, there's no such thing as a "provisional patent" Right. But its just shorthand for "provisional patent application". Maybe its sloppy, but I don't think its a big deal.
- xaa 12y agoActually, I guess what I meant is that there can be a massive delay between the time that the patent is filed and when it is granted (or rejected), during which time you are protected, and it doesn't count against the patent life. My boss, who is a biomedical researcher, has had a patent in this kind of limbo for 11 years. He's long since moved on (he doesn't even work at that institution any more), but the university's IP lawyers have been playing ping-pong with the patent office for over a decade. If he can achieve this without caring at all, imagine what well-funded pharma lawyers could do.