Comments on: Big Blue proposes new type of patent right – the EIP

By: Duncan

Duncan — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:02:01 +0000

This post has also been published at Current Partnering.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:41:13 +0000

Hi Narayan

Thanks very much.

As far as I understand it, the only differences from current patents would be that:

any third party can come and obtain a license under the patent (the patentee has no choice about this);
the patentee can not obtain an injunction under the patent. Instead, the patentee can still sue for infringement, but only recover damages or loss profits - which would amount to the sum that would have been paid under the automatic license above;
I expect that disagreements over the proper royalty rate (under the automatic license) would be common - and hence would need to be determined by the courts.

However, IBM's proposal is to leave current patents intact. Consequently the above procedure would only work in those situations where the patentee obtained this new EIP patent and does not have a normal patent.

Does that help?

By: Narayan

Narayan — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:35:55 +0000

Pl explain in detail in a simple language regarding new type of
patent right,so that i can put my own opinion in this regard.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:03:17 +0000

Thanks Leighton

On the topic of alternative (non-patent) economic incentives for pharmaceutical R&D, readers may listen to the podcast of a presentation by James Love (Director of Knowledge Ecology International) - 'A New Trade Framework for Global Healthcare Research and Development'

James discusses the concept of 'prizes' for pharmaceutical research (but not prizes in the normal sense of the word - he's an economist). Before you ridicule the concept, listen to the podcast and I think you'll agree that it is extremely well thought out.

Though, I suspect it has some way to go to become a truly practical alternative.