| Title |
Intellectual property policy in the pharmaceutical sciences: The effect of inappropriate patents and market exclusivity extensions on the health care system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AAPS Journal, August 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1208/aapsj0903033 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aaron S. Kesselheim |
| Abstract |
Though patents are effective tools for promoting innovation and protecting intellectual property in the pharmaceutical sciences, there has been growing concern about 2 important ways that patents in this field can have a negative effect on patient care and the practice of medicine. First, inventors can seek and receive patents on pharmaceutical products or research tools that stretch the statutory requirements for patenting. Second, patent holders in the pharmaceutical market can use legal loopholes or aspects of the patent registration system to extend exclusivity for inventions beyond what was anticipated by the Patent Act or subsequent legislation. The monopoly control bestowed by such inappropriate patents or manipulation of the patent system can limit options available to patients, increase the cost of health care delivery, and make cooperative research more difficult. In response, several different government and market-based efforts have emerged to promote more equitable patent policy in health care that encourages dissemination of ideas while still supporting the development of innovative products. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 18% |
| Researcher | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 16% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 11% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 22% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,277,679
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#225
of 1,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,076
of 76,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 76,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.