• Broad Institute "Wins" Legal Battle over CRISPR Cas-9 Gene-Editing Patent
    27 replies, posted
[t]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/04/27/Health-Environment-Science/Images/Otto_CRISPR_Jennifer_Doudna091456112827.jpg&w=1484[/t] [QUOTE]Berkeley will get the patent for using the system called Crispr-Cas9 in any living cell, from bacteria to blue whales. Broad/MIT gets the patent in eukaryotic cells, which is to say, plants and animals. ... “The patent that the Broad received is for the use of Crispr gene-editing technology in eukaryotic cells. The patent for the University of California is for all cells,” says Jennifer Doudna, the UC geneticist and co-founder of Caribou Biosciences who co-invented Crispr, on a conference call. Her metaphor: “They have a patent on green tennis balls; we have a patent for all tennis balls.” ... [U]Commercial outfits hoping to make new therapies will, for now, have to pay both institutions big fees.[/U] ERS Genomics, for example, charges from $10,000 to small start-ups to $1 million to large pharmaceutical firms. And an attenuated patent dispute could mean more red tape and lawyers on retainer for biotech scientists.[/QUOTE] [[URL="http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/02/15/515459773/broad-institute-wins-big-battle-over-crispr-gene-editing-patent"]1[/URL]][[URL="https://www.wired.com/2017/02/patent-decision-crispr-gene-editing-favors-mit/"]2[/URL]][[URL="http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-crispr-patent-decision-20170215-story.html"]3[/URL]][[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/02/15/broad-institute-scientist-prevails-in-epic-patent-fight-over-crispr/"]4[/URL]][[URL="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/broad-institute-crispr-patents/"]5[/URL]] Caught this doing some insider trading research at work today. I personally think this was a silly decision by the USPO. It doesn't look like it's going to significantly slow research immediately, but if this patent fight gets drawn out it's gonna be very hard to bring future therapies to market if you aren't a massive pharmaceutical company.
So what does this mean for CRISPR? How will it affect it in the long term? Read through the articles but don't have the whole picture.
fuck gene patents, the only genes you can patent should be purely synthetic
[QUOTE=Occlusion;51833305]So what does this mean for CRISPR? How will it affect it in the long term? Read through the articles but don't have the whole picture.[/QUOTE] It looks like research is going to continue, but expect to pay a massive fine to implement it for each patented gene for royalties.
I feel like patenting something like this is more adverse than it is positive; maybe not for money, but definitely for science & research.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;51833305]So what does this mean for CRISPR? How will it affect it in the long term? Read through the articles but don't have the whole picture.[/QUOTE] pharma licenses from berkley, agra licenses from berk, im not sure how it works out when you use it to implant animal genes into plants though
[quote]Commercial outfits hoping to make new therapies will, for now, have to pay both institutions big fees[/quote] Awesome, so that gene therapy that restores hearing that I was looking forward too probably went from decently affordable to some ludicrous number. Patents should be completely banned from certain subjects.
It begins, gene editing for only the rich :^)
Patents in general should be valid for only three to five years, tops. You create a new technology, you're allowed to make money for a few years selling it yourself, then it's anyone's game.
How could pure synthetic genes be made?
[QUOTE=archangel125;51833883]Patents in general should be valid for only three to five years, tops. You create a new technology, you're allowed to make money for a few years selling it yourself, then it's anyone's game.[/QUOTE] As much as I agree with that, a certain mouse themed resort company would like to have a word with you.
Wow! This is truly terrible news. I wonder how long it will take until you'll be able to buy the rights to someone's DNA? Should we start buying now and protecting family tree's from harm? [QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51835530]As much as I agree with that, a certain mouse themed resort company would like to have a word with you.[/QUOTE] Would this be the same resort that made it's money on certain copyrights that had just expired?
[QUOTE=archangel125;51833883]Patents in general should be valid for only three to five years, tops. You create a new technology, you're allowed to make money for a few years selling it yourself, then it's anyone's game.[/QUOTE] This sounds like the worst idea ever. Nobody would have intellectual rights to anything. This sounds like ancap theory. The only people who can use patents like these are very rich, intelligent, and educated anyway, it's not like gene editing will ever be 'anyone's game'.
[QUOTE=Ithon;51833368]fuck gene patents, the only genes you can patent should be purely synthetic[/QUOTE] They aren't patenting genes, they are patenting a way of making genes. Did you even read the article or google the thing at hand?
[QUOTE=James xX;51835825]They aren't patenting genes, they are patenting a way of making genes. Did you even read the article or google the thing at hand?[/QUOTE] They're patenting a system found in every living cell. Did you even read the first line of the article, or google the thing at hand?
This hopely will backfire when more people begin knowing this biotechnology are benefiting sides (also unironically helping their idealistic fantasy of becoming Superhumans, "Modified Physical Humans" or Hybrid of Human/Animal more happen) except Transhumanists and Biohackers/Grinders because they already know about it And if that happen, They will had update to make less regulated to use this biotechnology
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51835732]This sounds like the worst idea ever. Nobody would have intellectual rights to anything. This sounds like ancap theory. The only people who can use patents like these are very rich, intelligent, and educated anyway, it's not like gene editing will ever be 'anyone's game'.[/QUOTE] This should be cause for a ferocious legal battle. The entire human race versus the United States Patent Office, to force them to allow this technology to remain open to ANYONE to use. After all, they're trying to patent something found naturally in all organic life. It'd be like trying to say that you own every molecule of Vitamin D that our skin cells produce. You wouldn't just be laughed out of the courthouse, you'd be laughed off the fucking planet. And even if they somehow don't, despite all the legal carnage that would ensue if they decided NOT to let CRISPR be openly used, we'd probably STILL see "black clinics" open up to illegally make use of the tech for fully unregulated purposes.
Can I patent my cat?
[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;51835836]They're patenting a system found in every living cell. Did you even read the first line of the article, or google the thing at hand?[/QUOTE] I think you misunderstand. The CRISPR system is found natively in some microorganisms. The ingenuity (and thus what's being patented) is getting it to work elsewhere. [editline]18th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Instant Mix;51833385]I feel like patenting something like this is more adverse than it is positive; maybe not for money, but definitely for science & research.[/QUOTE] Patents don't really stop non-commercial research. Either patent holders don't bother chasing up academic groups or they charge a small, reasonable fee. In fact, without patents everything would just be a trade secret which would definitely slow progress. [editline]18th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ironman17;51835902]This should be cause for a ferocious legal battle. The entire human race versus the United States Patent Office, to force them to allow this technology to remain open to ANYONE to use. After all, they're trying to patent something found naturally in all organic life. It'd be like trying to say that you own every molecule of Vitamin D that our skin cells produce. You wouldn't just be laughed out of the courthouse, you'd be laughed off the fucking planet. And even if they somehow don't, despite all the legal carnage that would ensue if they decided NOT to let CRISPR be openly used, we'd probably STILL see "black clinics" open up to illegally make use of the tech for fully unregulated purposes.[/QUOTE] Patenting CRISPR is nothing like patenting Vitamin D. Nor is it like patenting a gene. [editline]18th February 2017[/editline] I think there's more confusion about the backstory. The news here isn't that CRISPR got patented at all. It was always going to be patented. What was in debate was which group would receive the patent as they developed and filed at roughly the same time.
I don't want to live in a future where children are literally corporate IP
[QUOTE=shad0w440;51836442]I don't want to live in a future where children are literally corporate IP[/QUOTE] [URL="http://img10.deviantart.net/f045/i/2010/074/a/b/half_life_2_born_by_whatpayne.jpg"]Don't get your kids gene modded then[/URL].
[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;51835836]They're patenting a system found in every living cell. Did you even read the first line of the article, or google the thing at hand?[/QUOTE] Today I learnt that a protein first isolated from [i]Streptococcus pyogenes[/i] involved in defence against foreign DNA is in fact found in every living cell. Thanks Facepunch!
[QUOTE=shad0w440;51836442]I don't want to live in a future where children are literally corporate IP[/QUOTE] Soon there will be discrimination based on brand loyalty.
[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;51836902]Soon there will be discrimination based on brand loyalty.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1552792"]Already happening[/URL]
So, Wouldn't we have to introduce the samethings as we have with GM plants? You know GM plants cannot reproduce as there is the problem of a super fast growing plant over taking the environment and causing damage. I can't imagine forced sterilization would be accepted as a part of having your genetic defect cured or cancer..
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.