Saturday, January 20, 2007

45% of biotech patents are from universities

I was quoted in The Scientist the other day citing a figure that 45% of all biotech patents (in the U.S.) are university patents. I had provided more information about this statistic to the author, and want to provide that clarification here:
  • The definitions of biotech vary. Obviously your definition may be different from what is used here, especially as there is no one "biotechnology" category used by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
  • This figure is not an official Association of University Technology Managers figure, as AUTM does not collect data about non-university patents.
  • I advised the author to review data available at BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization) and the Science & Engineering Indicators 2006 in order to come up with a number.
  • This is not a figure that I researched, or otherwise conducted analysis to determine. I had reported to the reporter that others have cited this figure.

The impacts of MedImmune v Genetech will be felt throughout all industries which rely on patents, not solely in the field of biotechnology. I suggest interested parties contact their attorney to seek appropriate advise for management of patents and licenses.

Labels: ,

posted by Dana Bostrom @ 08:17 0 Comments

The Cisco - Apple (Computer) Trademark dispute

Here comes Apple again, using their market power to push another competitor away. Why aren't they being sued by all the states for antitrust behavior?

Ok, there may be problems with Cisco's trademark for iPhone (perhaps they did not use it all the time, and thus lost rights) but Apple (Computer) is once again hoping that their market power wins in the marketplace for them, and the legal system will likely not have any bars to this particular action.

Reading Cisco's side of the story is enlightening. They wanted Apple to be more open. Share enough information that the products could be interoperable. But Apple walked away from the negotiation, chose to ignore what may be helpful to consumers, and maintain the Apple-only monopoloy.

What is so great about the name iPhone, anyway? Will the "i" in front of a product always link something to Apple? Competitors: I'd be filing "i"Radio, "i"VideoGameConsole" etc. One wonders if this will be Apple's only entry into the phone market. Unlike the iPod, where there are now large & small versions, at many price points, the iPhone is a multi-function device, at a (relatively) large price point. Will "mini" iPhone be introduced in the future, without the smart phone functions?

What will Apple do next?

Labels: ,

posted by Dana Bostrom @ 07:58 0 Comments