↓ Skip to main content

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

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 978)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 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 87 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 23%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 21 23%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 30 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Arts and Humanities 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 15 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 147. 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 27 December 2020.
All research outputs
#146,332
of 16,639,069 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#5
of 978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,652
of 191,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,639,069 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 191,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them