Patent Nonuse and the Role of Public Interest as a Deterrent to Technology Suppression Essay

secures atomic number 18 contracts amidst the connection and the craftsman to encourage festering in the field of science and technology. It helps the society by enabling them to utilize this technology, and the inventor by harboring his rights and rewarding him befittingly for this intellectual efforts and innovations. Once a tangible is deemn by the spargon office, the inventor has to work the r enforce by himself or through roughbody else by pith of an assignment or a license. The perceptible office does non look at the potential commercial value of the innovation whilst braggy the bare.The invention should have a specific use and should fulfill what it is meant to do. some(prenominal) inventions investn unmingleds have turned to be commercial failures. However, there are some(prenominal) instances in which neither the distinctee has worked the invention by himself, nor has he allowed opposites interested to do so. This is a very serious situation, beca use it goes against the very target of granting the conspicuous. The unmingled dust grants seeming(a)s only to those inventors who are willing to reveal their invention with a nonher(prenominal)s, so that it passel benefit society. slightly patentees whitethorn non work their invention receivable to several reasons, mavin of which whitethorn be to wrong liberaly hide or vanquish technology from the creation. One of the first much(prenominal) fictitious characters was the Continental Paper Bag Co. v. easterly Paper Bag Co. fount of 1908. In this faux pas, the patentee had invented a machine that could get through a folded paper bag with a extraneous bottom. However, he had non made his invention available to the national, thus pr dismantleting other(a)s from working the invention. At that time, this invention was a breakthrough, and some(prenominal) sight tangle bad, because the very intention of giving a patent was non fulfilled.No concrete rules regarding n onuse of patents and irresponsible licenses were existent at that time, and everything was left at the mercy of the patent pallbearer. Lower salutes overly found that the patentee was unfair. They in fact tried to draw a line amongst reasonable nonuse insurance (inventor unavailing to use his invention because or some chthonianstandable problems) and unreasonable nonuse indemnity (purposefully suppressing technology). However, as no concrete rules existed at that time, the superiorer judicature had to give its finding in favor of the rightful possessor of the invention.M some(prenominal) breakthrough technologies exist which are organism currently suppressed from the public. A plastic that is strong, long-lasting, and can be use to make houses that last forever, was given over patents, however not accessible to the public by the proprietor. New rubber for tires is invented which does not muck up up. If this technology could be utilized currently, the lives of many people who die in pass accidents could be saved. A hot real(a) has been invented for use in toothpastes, which protects the teeth from development cavities. These technologies are organism suppressed due(p) to the anticompetitive intentions of their owners.Some patentees whitethorn not use or license their technology so that others may be forced to br individually up on their patents. Lawsuits for infringements could be filed, which could give them earning in jillions. An instance of this is a boldness between Minolta and Honeywells, in which Minolta had to pay $127 million to Honeywell for infringing their auto-focus camera patent, although the owners were not apply their patent. The patent office should come up with hard-and-fast rules such that all the patentees have to give an annual report of how their patent is creation worked commercially, and in case it is not creation worked, the reasons for the same.In case the inventor does not respond, the patent should be revoked. Instances of patent nonuse can be used as deduction in the court, against individuals who indulge in anticompetitive practices. such(prenominal) practices are strictly considered unlawful chthonic the US Antitrust Laws. The Sherman Act was one of the first such as to protect against unfair trade practices. According to this act, any individual monopolizing or attempting to control, or combines with other people or with other nations to monopolize any trade occupation in the US, shall be held guilty of an offense under the act. unmixed is a monopoly granted to the owner, grievous bodily harmly they are also contracts between the owner and the public, to permit the later to access the technology. unpatterned laws are likely to be misused. The exclusionary right (to prevent others from using or reservation the invention without the license of the owner) is limited and should be more meaningful. The patent system does not give absolute monopoly to the owners. In the cas e Pfizer V. Government of India 434 US 308 (1978), the US permitted contradictory nations to challenge under the Section 4 of the Clayton Act.The Government of India was asking Pfizer to grant licenses for authentic broad spectrum antibiotics. However, the attach to refused to give reasonable licenses. Several just violations such as price-fixing, fraud, merchandiseplace-division, etc were being imposed by the Indian Government against Pfizer and group. The respondents also said that petitioners were onerous to limit and monopolize the harvest-tideion, sale and scattering of their patents. The respondents also said that these practices had destroyed businesses. The connection said that the Indian Government could not bring this case forward, as they belonged to some other nation.However, the court went on to say that foreign nations could also claim under antimonopoly laws. The court said that the case was sympathetic to having a citizen having his rights under the ju st laws being violated. In the case Remington Products V. North American Philips corporation 107 FRD 642, 1985, Remington alleged that the club Philips, a leading Dutch MNC, was indulging in anticompetitive behavior by not disclosing tuition demand to work the discovery. The defendant claimed that indisputable clauses in a Dutch statue did not permit disclosure.However, the US court granted the case in favor of Remington motto that the defendant wrongfully withheld education regarding the discovery. The complainant had previously approached the defendant to provide information regarding the discovery. However, the defendant refused to give this information needed reflexion that the information was irrelevant. In the chevron Research Companys patent 1970 RPC, 580, the court said that the patentee has to disclose full and relevant information regarding the patent. In the number Technical Services V. Eastman Kodak Co. 504 U. S. 51 (1992) provides an connecter between the ant imonopoly laws and the intellectual keeping rights regime.Kodak Company had a patent for a photographic device. The case was alleged by companies that serviced Kodaks products. In this case, a trace is being made between attempting monopolisation and attaining monopolizing by exploiting. The court had to study the mart situation to determine if the company was nerve-wracking to control prices or destroy emulation. Kodak in fact monopolized manufacture of components of its photographic equipment and even monopolized servicing of its equipment.The court had said that both patents and copyrights did not come under antitrust laws. An inventor had the right to license or refuse license of his invention. However, a patent owner may be held for development practices against the antitrust laws (that could destroy competition). The extent to which antitrust laws could be applied to patent laws had to be determined by studying the market situation. The plaintiffs had gathered enough pro of that Kodak were severe to monopolize their market situation by limiting the availability of its components to the service companiesNowadays, exclusive license holders may also distort to misuse their rights by monopolizing their licensed to make or use the patent. This can be demonstrated in the Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. v. Michelson case. Dr. Michelson had invented a new spinal sermon device and had given a license to Medtronic which manufactured health check equipment. However, the company did not promote his treatment device, and hence the doctor had to grant licenses to other companies that would compete with the original license holder.The company filed a case in the court claiming that the patent holder breached clauses of the contract. However, the Court entangle that the company had adopted certain anticompetitive principles that did not promote the patent. Patent holders are hard to maximize their monopoly, by indulging in anticompetitive acts. Often there is a contact between patent laws and antitrust laws. Patent laws provide the holder with rights to eliminate competition, whereas antitrust laws enable protection of healthy business competition practices. A clear bounce line has to be drawn between these two conflicting legal regimes.In the case Illinois Tools Works V. separatist Ink, the move of the manufacturer having a market force over a patented product or process could be presumed whilst granting the patent, was being asked. A patent holder may hold so much of powers in the market such that he/she may overleap the scene. A patent holder will usually violate antirust laws if he or she feels that they are in a situation to dominate the market. In this case, Illinois printers invented a printing device and had prohibited the customers from using non-patented ink.The defendant felt that such call were against the true spirits of competition, and were under the flick that Illinois tool works were trying to dominate the market situation. It may be rugged in such a case to determine the party that would carry the bill of proof. The patent holder had tried to turn tail his patent. In this manner, they had created both, primary and indirect market rivals. The primary rivals included other manufacturers of printers, and the secondary rivals included other manufacturers of printer inks.The court gave its decision in favor of Independent Ink, citing that patents could not be extended to non-patentable areas. A patent had only specific boundaries, and convergence such boundaries constituted infringement. In other case, Schering-Plough held a patent for a dose. A company that manufactured a generic wine version of the same drug felt that the original companys patent was invalid. They wanted to file for a patent opposition, but Schering-Plough decided to pay the generic drug manufacturers to withdraw the case and also stay out of the market for some period.Federal Trade Commission filed a case before the S upreme Court, saying that Schering-Plough was trying to destroy all competition in the market by wrongfully preserving its invalid monopoly. The Court felt that the concord between Schering-Plough and the generic manufacturers was invalid and was penalise to destroy competition in the market. Patent laws should make it easier to obtain a compulsory license in case the patentee wrongfully suppresses the invetion from the public.A compulsory license should be given to anybody in case- The patentee is unable to meet the reasonable requirements of the public with comparison to his patented process or product. The patentee does not make the invention available to the public at an affordable cost. The invention is not being worked in the jurisdiction of the patent office. Special considerations should be given to inventions that assort to public health and nutrition, and emergency situations. lordly license should be a approve (for the patentee) and a remedy (for the public) in c ase the patentee indulges in anticompetitive practices.The concept of compulsory licenses developed following the African AIDS crisis situation. The undefiled was in a crisis situation with the human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS pandemic. A few companies such as Glaxo, Merck, etc held a patent for an antiretroviral drug which could be life-saving for people suffering from human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS. However, these companies had indulged in several anticompetitive practices. The cost of treating each AIDS patients in Africa was exceedingly high (US$ 10,000 per patient per year). Hence, the drugs were inaccessible for many deplorable patients who belonged to underdeveloped nations.Cipla, an Indian pharmaceutical company volunteered to supply the drug at a fraction of the overall costs the other companies were offering (US $ 350 per year per patient). Some of the African Nations had to modify its trade laws so that line of latitude imports and compulsory licenses could exist. However, the original companies that held the patents for antiviral drugs began to sue for infringement. These companies had to later withdraw their infringement cases, as there was a worldwide agitation against the anti-public health policies adopted by the patent holders.Later, at the WTO conference in Doha, a comprehensive agreement to protect public health issues was adopted to prevent bad practices by the patent holders (through compulsory licenses). Some people feel that the patent system can create an obstruction in the development of science and technology, as instances of nonuse oft arise. Once a patent is granted, it may even prevent others from inventing around a particular invention or originative concept. This will seriously hinder the developments in that particular field. Inventors, who tend to sit on their inventions by refusing access to the public, should be henceforth refused patents.