Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Inventor Disputes DNA Sequencer Patent

Posted by timothy on from the stealing-back-your-best-ideas dept.

syntap writes: "USA Today is reporting on a story on an argument between a research company and the California Institute of Technology over who 'owns' a particular DNA sequencing technology, and they want it placed in the public domain. 'The suit also claims that millions of federal dollars were used to create the device, which would give researchers backed by the government the rights to buy and use the sequencer without paying royalties. It demands that Caltech and Applera refund millions of dollars to federal agencies for royalties they paid on sequencers used in public research.'"

2 of 20 comments (clear)

  1. sounds like he has a case by NaturePhotog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Huang says that he started with absorptive dyes because the chemistry was easier, but that he also considered the possibility of needing fluorescents -- an idea documented in his notebooks -- because they were known to be more sensitive.
    ...
    The disclosure, signed by Smith and the Hunkapiller brothers, says they conceived the sequencer idea on Oct. 1, 1982 -- just five weeks after Huang departed.

    So, the idea of using dyes (instead of radioactivity) was his. He also came up with the idea of using fluorescent dyes because of their increased sensitivity. He also came up with the idea of running the fragments through a single 'lane' of tubing to isolate them. And using an optical scanner to identify them. And using a computer to decode the results.

    Sounds to me like he had an awful lot to do with it. Whether or not that means the other part of the article (that the government should get them royalty-free) isn't as clear, but it sounds to me like Henry Huang was certainly an inventor of the process.

  2. The government getting ripped off. by doricee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find it kind of funny that a key argument here is about the gov. being ripped off by researchers. I work at the Hood lab as a student. I've noticed that the researchers were rather concerned by the University of Washington's poor handling of Intellectual property. (one of the reasons they left to form a private non-profit) I've heard of many small examples but the best one is that of one researcher who developed a cell line that the UW sold the rights to a company for dirt cheap and didnt reserve any rights for itself to continue to work on it. So that reseacher is working illegally on something that he developed. I'd guess similar things happen a lot of other public research centers. Maybe public research centers need better IP lawyers?