Re: Internation Patent Law doesn't apply to USG?
on Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 02:45:36PM -0700, Meyer Wolfsheim (wolf@priori.net) wrote:
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D- New York, said Tuesday a generic version of ciproflaxin, the antibiotic used to treat anthrax, should be made available immediately for government use even though German drugmaker BayerAG holds the patent for the drug.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/10/16/anthrax/ http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/16/news/generic_cipro/
To the best of my knowledge, patent law is not uniform internationally,
certainly not to the extent copyright law is. In the US, both patent
and copyright are powers granted to, not obligations required of,
Congress. There is prior precedent for lifting patent protections,
usually as anti-trust settlements.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, patent law is not uniform internationally, certainly not to the extent copyright law is. In the US, both patent and copyright are powers granted to, not obligations required of, Congress. There is prior precedent for lifting patent protections, usually as anti-trust settlements.
While I don't agree with most of the "anti-trust law" in general (another issue entirely), in order to have an anti-trust settlement, there would have been an anti-trust lawsuit. The company being stripped of its patents would have had a chance to defend itself. If the US begins arbitrarily lifting patent restrictions in order to steal from foreign companies, expect retaliation in kind. -MW-
participants (2)
-
Karsten M. Self -
Meyer Wolfsheim