TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

US PTO rules against Univ of California, argues that Broad Inst invented CRISPR

217 点作者 dluan大约 3 年前

17 条评论

Gatsky大约 3 年前
Reminiscent of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [1] where there were and are ongoing patent disputes for the last 30 years.<p>The highly esteemed Eric Lander, founding director of the Broad Institute, who recently got turfed out of the Whitehouse for being an asshole following testimony by 14 different staffers [2], wrote a highly biased reinvention of history around CRISPR published in Cell [3] which was severely criticised [4,5]. To this day, this highly cited &#x27;review&#x27; still does not have a conflict of interest statement.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Polymerase_chain_reaction#Patent_disputes" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Polymerase_chain_reaction#Pate...</a> [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Eric_Lander#Science_Advisor_to_the_President" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Eric_Lander#Science_Advisor_to...</a> [3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cell.com&#x2F;cell&#x2F;fulltext&#x2F;S0092-8674(15)01705-5" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cell.com&#x2F;cell&#x2F;fulltext&#x2F;S0092-8674(15)01705-5</a> [4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statnews.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;01&#x2F;25&#x2F;why-eric-lander-morphed&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statnews.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;01&#x2F;25&#x2F;why-eric-lander-morphed&#x2F;</a> [5] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.michaeleisen.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;?p=1825" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.michaeleisen.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;?p=1825</a>
评论 #30512951 未加载
评论 #30509219 未加载
dluan大约 3 年前
It seems that in determining who first &#x27;invented&#x27; CRISPR, the PTO has gone into lab notebooks as far back as 2012.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;jsherkow&#x2F;status&#x2F;1498413788994940928&#x2F;photo&#x2F;1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;jsherkow&#x2F;status&#x2F;1498413788994940928&#x2F;phot...</a>
评论 #30508433 未加载
评论 #30508449 未加载
评论 #30508377 未加载
butner大约 3 年前
The Code Breaker by Walter Isaacson attempts to chronicle this in detail. The narrative has UC&#x2F;Doudna making the fundamental contributions. And that the leap to human cells was &quot;trivial&quot; made by Broad&#x2F;Zhang. Anyone have any perspective on how they were characterized?
评论 #30508879 未加载
评论 #30513008 未加载
评论 #30514433 未加载
评论 #30513226 未加载
cwkoss大约 3 年前
It&#x27;s depressing that any entity can have monopolistic ownership over CRISPR.<p>If someone wins, will they prevent people from using the technique without a hefty licensing fee? How much potential is there for this to slow scientific progress?
评论 #30513245 未加载
评论 #30514452 未加载
评论 #30514876 未加载
评论 #30520179 未加载
评论 #30514408 未加载
评论 #30511861 未加载
评论 #30513296 未加载
olliej大约 3 年前
What’s especially irksome here is there use of “but this person got it to work first” as their deciding factor, but at the same time they allow thousands of patents for things with no working example
aluminum96大约 3 年前
Only somewhat on-topic, but this is the latest in a long line of cases which transfer IP from universities to corporations on various grounds.<p>For a particularly representative previous example, see Stanford v Roche [1], in which SCOTUS found that a patent originated with the individual researcher and not his institution, and was therefore transferrable to other private entities with whom the researcher had agreements.<p>I, for one, believe that we should enact stronger protections to ensure that research partially performed at publicly-funded labs remains in the hands of the public. In particular, I think that the Bayh–Dole Act should be strengthened to vest the patent with the institution directly, and to create a default presumption that the institution owns the IP.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Stanford_University_v._Roche_Molecular_Systems,_Inc" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Stanford_University_v._Roche_M...</a>.
评论 #30508864 未加载
评论 #30508552 未加载
评论 #30509239 未加载
评论 #30509557 未加载
评论 #30510363 未加载
评论 #30510027 未加载
评论 #30510078 未加载
评论 #30512450 未加载
评论 #30508894 未加载
riemannzeta大约 3 年前
This the first-to-invent rule going out with a bang. Under a change in the law in 2013, the UC Regents never would have had the chance to argue that they were entitled to the claims here because Harvard filed first. Actually, they could still argue that Harvard stole (or &quot;derived&quot;) the idea from them. But that doesn&#x27;t seem to be the case here. Under the current law, this interference proceeding never would have happened.
评论 #30511823 未加载
diego_moita大约 3 年前
But this is just the US patent, right?<p>AFAIK, the European patent office already recognizes Charpentier &amp; Doudna as the patent owners.
评论 #30510065 未加载
throwthere大约 3 年前
More background— <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.broadinstitute.org&#x2F;crispr&#x2F;journalists-statement-and-background-crispr-patent-process" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.broadinstitute.org&#x2F;crispr&#x2F;journalists-statement-...</a>
评论 #30509563 未加载
xiphias2大约 3 年前
This decision came on the same day Intelia published positive results with gene editing, the stock would have jumped much higher without this decision:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=zl8sRdXFHlM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=zl8sRdXFHlM</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ir.intelliatx.com&#x2F;news-releases&#x2F;news-release-details&#x2F;intellia-and-regeneron-announce-updated-phase-1-data" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ir.intelliatx.com&#x2F;news-releases&#x2F;news-release-details...</a>
pabs3大约 3 年前
Wasn&#x27;t CRISPR discovered in bacteria rather than invented?
评论 #30509708 未加载
评论 #30509292 未加载
qiskit大约 3 年前
Do the researchers who discover&#x2F;invent ever get a stake in the licensing&#x2F;patent or do the owners&#x2F;investors of the lab own the rights to the discovery? Or in a university setting, do the professors&#x2F;researchers get to own a part of their discovery or are the discoveries owned by universities entirely?
评论 #30509765 未加载
评论 #30509734 未加载
starwind大约 3 年前
Unrelated but can anyone recommend a good, more technical introduction to CRISPR? I read Isaacson&#x27;s book and I really enjoyed his technical discussion but I really wanted more
tehjoker大约 3 年前
Wow, so the judge grants CVC invented CRISPR-Cas9 but grants it to Broad for reducing it to practice in eukaryotic cells. This feels really unfair to me. It is an essential step, but it&#x27;s also a subset of broad application in what could be the most profitable area.
s1artibartfast大约 3 年前
Why wasn&#x27;t this simply based on first to file? I thought the PTO moved away from the discovery standard to a disclosure one?
评论 #30508714 未加载
评论 #30508435 未加载
qualudeheart大约 3 年前
Sounds economically big, in terms of who gets to monetize CRISPR ip.
评论 #30508751 未加载
评论 #30508563 未加载
djhcfhvf大约 3 年前
anyone remember when RAND Corp got the patents for what essentially is the IPv4, despite every single discovery and patents being at UC as well? is this a regular pattern?