This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:824-826.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS of patents is timely for the field of ophthalmology. Recent incidents in the field such as the Pillar Point patents and the patent filed for a modification of the cataract incision by Pallin, directly concern both medical patents and medical methods patents. The cases have been hotly and extensively debated and the purpose of this article is not to review them. However, it may be time to discuss the ethical and, to a lesser degree, the legal beliefs that underlie patents, licensing, and royalties.

HISTORY

Patents are intended to encourage innovation and are intended to benefit society. Under US law, a patent represents a federal grant of the "right to exclude others from making, using or selling" an invention or discovery for a 17-year period,¹ issued through the Patent and Trademark Office of the Department of Commerce. Adler² notes that our constitution gives Congress the power to enact . . . [Full Text of this Article]

ETHICAL CONCERNS

Justice

Autonomy

Professionalism

COMMENT


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Ethical Conflicts in University-Based Research
Lempert and Packer
Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:148-149.
FULL TEXT