The alternative is trade secrets rather than patents – researchers still won’t publish results
Emily Michiko Morris, 2022 - is David L. Brennan Endowed Chair, Associate Professor, and Associate Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law & Technology at the University of Akron School of Law. “A Response to ‘Another Legislative Attempt to Revive Gene Patenting’” 8/26, https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/08/26/a-response-to-another-legislative-attempt-to-revive-gene-patenting/ //DH
The effects of patents on R&D are also context-dependent. A study by Bhavan Sampat and Heidi L. Williams, for example, suggests that gene patents had little effect on follow-on innovation and were preferable to trade secrecy. As Sampat and Williams note, underlying criticism of gene patenting “seems to be an assumption that if genes are not patented, they would be placed in the public domain.” Patents encourage disclosure and access: patents on genes make the information encoded in them free for all to use.