Still Patently Unconstitutional: A Reply to Professor Nard

9 Pages Posted: 21 Nov 2003  

Margo A. Bagley

Emory University School of Law; University of Virginia School of Law; Emory University School of Law

Abstract

In Defense of Geographic Disparity (also forthcoming, 88 MINN. L. REV., Fall 2003), is Professor Craig Nard's response to Professor Bagley's article Patently Unconstitutional: The Geographical Limitation on Prior Art in a Small World, 87 MINN. L. REV. 679, 680-682 (2003). In this essay, Professor Bagley addresses Professor Nard's contention that the geographic limitation on prior art can be justified by the incentives it provides for U.S. pharmaceutical development which may enhance public welfare. By refocusing on the provision's constitutional deficiencies, expanding on the myriad costs associated with the provision, and discussing the dangers of maintaining this double standard that is out of step with the realities of both modern and traditional societies, Professor Bagley reaffirms her conclusion that elimination of the geographical limitation is a necessity in this small, small world.

Suggested Citation

Bagley, Margo A., Still Patently Unconstitutional: A Reply to Professor Nard. Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 88, p. 238, 2003. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=448960 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.448960

Margo A. Bagley (Contact Author)

Emory University School of Law ( email )

1301 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30322
United States
404-727-8293 (Phone)
404-727-6820 (Fax)

University of Virginia School of Law ( email )

580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
United States

Emory University School of Law ( email )

1301 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30322
United States
404-727-8293 (Phone)
404-727-6820 (Fax)

Paper statistics

Downloads
101
Rank
218,636
Abstract Views
1,996