Browse by:



Displaying: 81-99 of 99 documents


81. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 3 > Issue: 3
Anne-Taylor Cahill

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

82. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 3 > Issue: 3
Elizabeth A. Corley

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

83. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 3 > Issue: 2
William J. FitzPatrick, Lee L. Zwanziger

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

84. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 3 > Issue: 2
Avner Levin

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

85. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 3 > Issue: 1
David B. Resnik

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper discusses the idea of forming a patent pool in order to address some of the licensing problems in the biotechnology industry. The pool would be an independent, non-profit corporation that would manage patents and have the authority to grant licenses. The patent pool would not be a purely altruistic venture, since it would charge licensing fees. The pool would charge the market price for licensing services and reimburse patent holders for licensing activities. The pool would also provide patent holders with a minimum income based on a percentage of royalties generated from the pool. The pool would include patents on a variety of materials and methods that play an important role in biotechnology. It would also be international in scope, with the power to grant licenses in different countries.

86. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 3 > Issue: 1
Doug Jesseph

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

87. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 2 > Issue: 7
Jennifer Douglas-Vidas, Marsha E. Reichman

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

88. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 2 > Issue: 6
Kimarie R. Stratos

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

89. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 2 > Issue: 5
Norman K. Swazo

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

90. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 2 > Issue: 5
Susanne B. Haga, Joann A. Boughman

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

91. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 2 > Issue: 4
Richard Haigh, Mirko Bagaric

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The time may not be far away where we may be able to live much longer than we do now – potentially forever. This will have an enormous impact on the way people live their lives as the underlying premise that life is finite underpins many of the central decisions and life choices we make. This paper outlines some philosophical and legal doctrines that are based on the premise that life is finite and some of the changes that may need to occur in light of medical advances in ageing. In particular, it focuses on the changes to sentencing law that may be necessary to accommodate increased human longevity. For the skeptics who refuse to accept the concept of immortality, the arguments presented do not depend on living forever. Some of the issues discussed here are also relevant, albeit in an attenuated manner, because of increases in human longevity that have occurred in the last 100 years.Babies born 30 years hence may grow up with such perfect cellular maintenance that they will never age, dying only by accident or choice. Will we get the benefits of these discoveries? Maybe not – we might be, sadly, the last mortal generation. But who knows – if we can keep ourselves alive and healthy, maybe some of these treatments will be retrofitted into our ailing bodies and make us new again.... If you are lucky you may see 3000, or even live indefinitely. We need to discuss, well ahead of time, whether that would be desirable. Me, I’m voting for life over death.

92. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 2 > Issue: 3
Brent Garland

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

93. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Bryn Williams-Jones

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

94. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Michelle R. Detwiler

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

95. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 1 > Issue: 2
Cary P. Gross

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

96. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 1 > Issue: 2
Tanya Williams, Scott Siera, Arri Eisen

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

97. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 1 > Issue: 1
Susan Haack

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

98. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 1 > Issue: 1
Annabelle Lever

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

99. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law: Volume > 1 > Issue: 1
Mark S. Frankel

view |  rights & permissions | cited by