IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v29y2007i3p307-315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patently obvious: Intellectual property rights and nanotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Bowman, Diana M.

Abstract

Rapid technological advances and commercialisation of the emerging field of nanotechnology will challenge traditional international and domestic regulatory regimes, including intellectual property rights. This article examines the role of the World Trade Organisation's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement as a global regulatory device for nanotechnology, and questions the applicability of the Agreement with respect to current and future nanotechnology applications. With the commercialisation of nanotechnology already occurring, exploration of the international intellectual property and nanotechnology interface is timely. Early recognition of uncertainties will enable policy makers the ability to balance the needs of commercial investors and innovation against the broader objectives and ideals promised by nanotechnology.

Suggested Citation

  • Bowman, Diana M., 2007. "Patently obvious: Intellectual property rights and nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 307-315.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:29:y:2007:i:3:p:307-315
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.04.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X07000280
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.04.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carlos Correa, 2001. "The TRIPS Agreement: How much room for maneuver?," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 79-107.
    2. Arnall, Alexander & Parr, Douglass, 2005. "Moving the nanoscience and technology (NST) debate forwards: short-term impacts, long-term uncertainty and the social constitution," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 23-38.
    3. Lesser, William H., 2000. "An Economic Approach To Identifying An 'Effective Sui Generis System' For Plant Variety Protection Unders Trips," Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 25996, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    4. W. Lesser, 2000. "An economic approach to identifying an “effective sui generis system” for plant variety protection under trips," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 96-114.
    5. Fisher, Erik, 2005. "Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 321-328.
    6. Braithwaite,John & Drahos,Peter, 2000. "Global Business Regulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521784993, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
    2. Cottier, Thomas & Jost, Dannie, 2012. "Broad Concerns about Nanotechnology Patents: Symptoms and Diagnosis," Papers 408, World Trade Institute.
    3. Willoughby, Kelvin W. & Mullina, Nadezhda, 2021. "Reverse innovation, international patenting and economic inertia: Constraints to appropriating the benefits of technological innovation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marc Baudry & Adrien Hervouet, 2017. "The private value of plant variety protection and the impact of exemption rules," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 202-226, April.
    2. Wiek, Arnim & Zemp, Stefan & Siegrist, Michael & Walter, Alexander I., 2007. "Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 388-406.
    3. Sunil Kanwar & Robert Evenson, 2003. "Does intellectual property protection spur technological change?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 235-264, April.
    4. Baudry Marc & Hervouet Adrien, 2016. "Innovation in the Seed Market: The Role of IPRs and Commercialization Rules," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 51-68, May.
    5. Adrien Hervouet & Marc Baudry, 2012. "Promoting innovation in the seed market and biodiversity: the role of IPRs and commercialization rules," Post-Print hal-02012226, HAL.
    6. Boer, Duncan den & Rip, Arie & Speller, Sylvia, 2009. "Scripting possible futures of nanotechnologies: A methodology that enhances reflexivity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 295-304.
    7. Adrien Hervouet & Marc Baudry, 2011. "Promoting innovation in the seed market and biodiversity: the role of IPRs and commercialization rules," Post-Print hal-02012239, HAL.
    8. Jackson, Lee Ann, 2000. "Agricultural Biotechnology And The Privatization Of Genetic Information: Implications For Innovation And Equity," Working Papers 14365, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    9. David Monciardini & Guido Conaldi, 2019. "The European regulation of corporate social responsibility: The role of beneficiaries' intermediaries," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 240-259, June.
    10. Daniel Fitzpatrick & Rebecca Monson, 2022. "Property rights and climate migration: Adaptive governance in the South Pacific," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 519-535, April.
    11. Andreas Panagopoulos, 2004. "When Does Patent Protection Stimulate Innovation?," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 04/565, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    12. Anna Hutchens, 2011. "Playing games of governance: How and why Fair Trade pioneers evade corporate capture," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 221-240, June.
    13. Mennicken, Andrea, 2006. "Translation and standardisation: audit world building in Post-Soviet Russia," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 3033, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic & Sigrid Quack, 2004. "Governing Globalization – Bringing Institutions Back In," Post-Print hal-01892007, HAL.
    15. Philip James & Lilian Miles & Richard Croucher & Mark Houssart, 2019. "Regulating factory safety in the Bangladeshi garment industry," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 431-444, September.
    16. Ungericht Bernhard & Hirt Christian, 2010. "CSR as a Political Arena: The Struggle for a European Framework," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(4), pages 1-24, December.
    17. Emilie Cloatre & Robert Dingwall, 2013. "“Embedded regulation:” The migration of objects, scripts, and governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 365-386, September.
    18. Bartsch, Sonja & Kohlmorgen, Lars, 2007. "The Role of Southern Actors in Global Governance: The Fight against HIV/AIDS," GIGA Working Papers 46, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    19. Braithwaite, John, 2006. "Responsive regulation and developing economies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 884-898, May.
    20. Pompeu Casanovas & Louis de Koker & Mustafa Hashmi, 2022. "Law, Socio-Legal Governance, the Internet of Things, and Industry 4.0: A Middle-Out/Inside-Out Approach," J, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-28, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:29:y:2007:i:3:p:307-315. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.