↓ Skip to main content

Comment: Compulsory Licensing of Patented Pharmaceutical Inventions: Evaluating the Options

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
28 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comment: Compulsory Licensing of Patented Pharmaceutical Inventions: Evaluating the Options
Published in
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
DOI 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2009.00369.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jerome H Reichman

Abstract

In this Comment, the author traces the relevant legislative history pertaining to compulsory licensing of patented pharmaceuticals from the TRIPS Agreement of 1994 to the 2003 waiver to, and later proposed amendment of, article 31, which enables poor countries to obtain needed medicines from other countries that possess manufacturing capacity. The Comment then evaluates recent, controversial uses of the relevant legislative machinery as viewed from different critical perspectives. The Comment shows how developing countries seeking access to essential medicines can collaborate in ways that would avoid undermining incentives to innovation and other social costs attributed to compulsory licensing. It ends by defending the legality of recent measures taken to promote public health in developing countries, and by reminding developed countries that unilateral retaliation against such measures is demonstratably illegal under WTO foundational law and jurisprudence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Mexico 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 119 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 30 24%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 38 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 29 24%