Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Office Rules CRISPR Patents, Potentially Worth Billions, Belong To Broad Institute (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the more-than-one-sentence-long dept.

According to a ruling by judges at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the disputed patents on the gene-editing tool CRISPR belong to the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. "The ruling comes a little over two months after a high-profile court hearing, during which MIT and University of California, Berkeley heatedly argued about who should own CRISPR," The Verge reports. From their report: STAT News reported that the decision was one sentence long. The three judges decided that the Broad patents are different enough from the ones the University of California applied for that the Broad patents stand. The patent ruling suggests that the work done by Jennifer Doudna of the University of California and her colleagues on CRISPR wasn't so groundbreaking as to make any other advance obvious. But that legal opinion isn't how the science world views her work, STAT points out: "Doudna and her chief collaborator, Emmanuelle Charpentier, won the $3 million Breakthrough Prize in the life sciences in 2015, the $500,000 Gruber Genetics Prize in 2015, and the $450,000 Japan Prize in 2017," the outlet notes.

70 comments

  1. Is there a product these patents protect? by evanh · · Score: 0

    If not then the patents should be voided. Otherwise the patent system gets trolled into garbage disrepute.

    1. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      In this case the product is the tool that is used to edit genes.

    2. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Re:Is there a product these patents protect?"
      Yes.
      In (overly broad) summary, Jennifer Doudna and collaborators showed that CRISPR could cut DNA at targeted sites. Zhang and collaborators used that targeting capability to edit DNA. Editing DNA is the product you asked about (in patent terminology, a method of doing something is patentable). That product use uses the cutting that Dudna demonstrated.

      A quick (and still overly broad) analysis is that Dudna et al discovered the science, and Zhang et al reduced it to practice. However, reducing it to practice only gets you a patent if it's not obvious.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    3. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by shaitand · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Doesn't sound like a product or invention to me, sounds like a discovery of natural phenomenon and shouldn't be covered by patent but rather immediately rendered into the global public domain for free use by all.

    4. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If by "discovered the science", you meant "developed the protocol for doing genome engineering (in prokaryotes) that could then be immediately applied to eukaryotes by Zhang after he watched Doudna's presentation on the topic", then sure.

    5. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a process, which can lead to products. An easier to understand example is Revere Ware pots and pans. Earlier versions of them are stamped "process patent" because the pots and pans themselves were not what was patented. Instead, they patented the *process* of bonding the copper to the bottom of the pan, which is less obvious than you might think.

      If you want to argue against patents of any kind, OK; but the notion of patenting a process which leads to products is pretty well established under the umbrella of patents.

    6. Re: Is there a product these patents protect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry. The USPTO has
      No judges.
      (contrary to the standard
      useless article summary).

    7. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are about a dozen companies using licenses from one or the other to develop products. Including Editas which was oddly founded by Doudna of UC Berkley AND Zhang of the Broad institute

      Not sure there's any CRISPR products for sale yet because research doesn't move as fast as the legal system does, but it's definitely not patent trolling. Almost every molecular biology lab is starting to use crispr in some capacity, So there should be applications coming out eventually.

      There are supposedly some edited dogs in china I guess?

    8. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well, by the time they can use that patent in any meaningful way beyond simply experimentation it will have expired. So how much is it worth beyond experimentation, not much really. I smell another bankster pump and dump though, the gene bomb, to follow up the dot bomb collapse (only fools believe that lame scam any more).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah - pretty much every refrigerator on the market nowadays has a CRISPR drawer.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    10. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Well, by the time they can use that patent in any meaningful way beyond simply experimentation it will have expired. "

      By the time it expires everything meaningful that can be done with the base technology will be locked behind reams of patents like most work that can be done with DNA. With $500-1000, a bunch of DIY equipment, 3-6months worth of self-study, you can set up a mini lab and do all sorts of experimentation... at least you could if everything you need weren't locked up in patents that turn 15 cents worth of raw materials into $5000 a shot IP licenses with promises not to share with others.

    11. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a natural phenomenon that was engineered and modified to make it useful to us. That transformative process means it's patentable. You're welcome to use the natural version, of course, but it won't be nearly as useful.

    12. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      CRISPR (the invention) is a synthetic implementation of the CRISPR/Cas system immune system.

      It is a method of customizing where genes are cut. Other methods are used to insert or modify DNA.

      It is a tool, albeit a much better one than existed before. Thus, CRISPR could be best compared to replacing a hacksaw with a laser cutter. The general public has no need of such a tool, but we will most likely buy many things which this tool produces.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    13. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by shaitand · · Score: 2

      "Thus, CRISPR could be best compared to replacing a hacksaw with a laser cutter. The general public has no need of such a tool"

      On the contrary, like a laser cutter the general public does have much use for the tool. Unlike laser cutters the fundamental tools are being locked behind non-disclosure agreements and patents artificially inflating the price to play dramatically. If the general public had no use for such tools makers clubs, diy bio groups, etc wouldn't exist at all. As it stands diy bio groups are limited to mostly cookie cutter protocols that repeat previous experiments because the more general purpose tools (both those which exist and those which they could produce) are locked behind paywalls.

      There is no great magic behind synthesizing RNA and PCR for instance and certainly no reason for these materials to be expensive but getting your hands on the materials for a laymen is rather difficult and even if you can it normally comes with an agreement which precludes using those tools to replicate those precursors and share along with information on how to do the same. Information on using common bacterial, viral, etc vectors and basic tools to work with them should be completely free as well.

      We desperately need a bioGNU. Many of these processes are actually refined nearly to the point of being programmable like code but access is kept strictly controlled and/or key pieces that allow one to cheaply and easily replicate the precursors is held back to artificially limit access and drive up prices.

    14. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      That is not accurate according to what I am reading
      Basically, Dudna et. al did all of their work on Prokaryotes, while Zhiang when straight to Eukaroyotes. They both had it working, but on different cell types. And Dudna wanted her patents to be applied across all cell types though she had not done so.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re:Is there a product these patents protect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We desperately need a bioGNU.

      Something like iGEM might be what you're looking for. IANAL, but I think you can still use CRISPR/Cas9 for non-commercial purposes (I think the patent system allows for this?). There are also other CRISPR/Cas systems that rely on other version of Cas, and those may not be patented. They're less well-characterized, but they do exist.

  2. Oh good by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the deep pockets win again.

    Also... WTF? We stand on the shoulders of giants every day while we share and consume information, yet only one entity gets to own the technique derived from all these other people's efforts. And it's no surprise to me that it is an entity which absolutely doesn't need it.

    Seriously, screw these schools who make you pay them to own your ideas... what better business is there?

    It's the same thing with college sports... billions of $$ and all straight into the war chests of these institutions and the player gets to pay for the privilege...

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:Oh good by felixrising · · Score: 1

      It's the American way...

    2. Re:Oh good by XXongo · · Score: 1

      So the deep pockets win again.

      Uh, the University of California system has a 28.5 billion dollar annual budget. I'd call their pockets pretty deep.

    3. Re:Oh good by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This being found to be owned by either is a win for deep pockets and a loss for the rest of the world

  3. Two different things by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

    "The patent ruling suggests that the work done by Jennifer Doudna of the University of California and her colleagues on CRISPR wasn't so groundbreaking as to make any other advance obvious. But that legal opinion isn't how the science world views her work, STAT points out: "Doudna and her chief collaborator, Emmanuelle Charpentier, won the $3 million Breakthrough Prize in the life sciences in 2015, the $500,000 Gruber Genetics Prize in 2015, and the $450,000 Ja..."

    These are two different things. The patent ruling was only about whether the work by Doudna, Charpentier et al. made the MIT/Harvard work "obvious". The Breakthrough and other prizes didn't care whether the MIT/Harvard work was obvious or not, it was an award for heir work being a breakthrough, whether it led to any applications or not.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Two different things by coldandcalculating · · Score: 5, Informative

      Important points from the article:

      "It all began in 2012, when UC Berkeley biochemist Jennifer Doudna and others, including Charpentier, published a seminal Science paper on CRISPR. In this paper, Doudna showed that the gene-editing technology can be used to cut DNA in a test tube at targeted sites. Later, Doudna filed a patent application for CRISPR."

      "Then in 2013, in another Science paper, MIT bioengineer Feng Zhang and his team reported developing a CRISPR system that edited genomes in eukaryotic cells — the cells of animals and people. When Zhang filed his own patent application, he applied for the PTO to “fast track” its patent review process. The result was that although UC Berkeley filed first, the PTO actually awarded the patent to the Broad and MIT in April 2014. (The Broad and MIT were later awarded a bunch of other CRISPR patents.) So UC Berkeley asked for a so-called “interference proceeding” — an official reassessment to determine who was the first to invent the gene-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9.

      This is why many in the life science community feel that Doudna/Charpentier got short-changed. This all happened right before the switch to the current "first-to-file" rule in USPTO. Also, many in the life sciences are frustrated at claims that Zhang's application to eukaryotic cells wasn't obvious. Those aforementioned awards were given to D/C precisely because scientists recognized the (obvious) potential of CRISPR/Cas to revolutionize the treatment of human disease. While Zhang's group has done some groundbreaking later work in the CRISPR field, Doudna et al probably deserve the patent. But props to MIT/Zhang for having a better understanding of patent law. That counts for a lot these days.

    2. Re:Two different things by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      Explain something to me, even with first to invent and Zhang's patent being deemed a non obvious innovation. Doesn't the Berkeley patent then still stand on the more general use of CRISPR to edit DNA period? They were obviously the first to invent that, even though seemingly applying it to DNA from a specific cell is some incredible innovation. So wouldn't you need a patent license from both at this point to use CRISPR?

    3. Re:Two different things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't forget that Doudna presented at a conference, to a room that included Zhang, where she described the process of using CRISPR-Cas9 to do genome engineering... where she said the obvious next step was to do this in Eukaryotes... from whence Zhang then went home and did the experiment described by Doudna and claimed to have invented the technology independently.

      There's a reason academics aren't pleased with Zhang's behavior.

    4. Re:Two different things by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Furthermore Doudnav and Charpentier are unlikely to have written the patents so the "work" the judges consider is not theirs, they are merely the inventors. You can invent anything but you are entitled to only what the patent says you are.

      The statement was written by a person ignorant of the issues.

    5. Re:Two different things by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Opinions of "academics" bystanders don't matter. If this were provable, as it should easily be if what is stated were true, then the patent process would care greatly. The people involved in litigating these issues aren't dumb.

    6. Re:Two different things by bongey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Zhang doesn't seem to have been the most ethical,one of the co-inventors said it was based off Douda's work. At the same time testimony a pioneer in gene splicing George Church said moving from bacteria to human cell “anything but obvious”.http://www.nature.com/news/titanic-clash-over-crispr-patents-turns-ugly-1.20631

      I would say generally it is rather suspect Zhang "invented" the method just merely 6 months after he seen her lecture. Zhang also filed a fast track patent, it seemed like he was trying to game the patent system.

    7. Re:Two different things by bongey · · Score: 1

      Just because Zhang won legally, it doesn't make it ethical. Zhang seems to have gamed the patent system. http://www.nature.com/news/tit...

    8. Re:Two different things by epine · · Score: 1

      But props to MIT/Zhang for having a better understanding of patent law. That counts for a lot these days.

      Your implication being that UC Berkeley doesn't see fit to make this caliber of legal advice available to faculty self-evidently working in fields with billions of dollars at stake?

      If Berkeley fell short on sound legal acumen with the Holy Grail of the Biological Revolution inches away from the tips of their greedy little fingers, god help man with garage.

    9. Re:Two different things by whit3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's two different processes patented here. One cuts the gene, and is part of an elaboration that applies the genetic cut to a living cell. So, using CRISPR to make the cut is covered by the Berkeley patent, and using it in the way described by the MIT patent is also covered. To use the MIT procedure, you need a license for the Berkeley procedure as well. So, neither group has 'lost', in the sense that (as far as I can see) both have valid patent protection.

    10. Re:Two different things by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Doudna suggested it could be done, but she couldn't figure out how to make it happen. Zhang's patent is for a process that actually works.

    11. Re:Two different things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is more that Doudna didn't try do it in human cells rather than she couldn't figure out how to make it happen. Zhang took her protocol, but ran it with human cells and it worked. Zhang didn't have to invent anything in particular.

      It is like one of those, "but on the internet" patents that were the height of humor here some few years ago. In this case it was, "but in eukaryotic cells".

    12. Re:Two different things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patent system is such that it doesn't matter. Zhang gamed the patent system, using newly implemented rules meant to minimize the amount of litigation needed to defend patents. The same rule changes were strongly predicted to shift power even more to those who had more money, vs. those who could prove they had invented something.

      The Broad Institute generally is a premier self-promoter, above all else. Some of their software are referred to as the gold-standard in bio data analysis... primarily because they keep saying it is the gold-standard in bio data analysis.

    13. Re:Two different things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the enzyme, and RNAs used by Doudna don't actually work in eukaryotic cells. You have to make some changes to both for it to work in eukaryotes. Those changes are the inventive step made by Zhang.

    14. Re:Two different things by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      So we'll have a two couple gazillionaires, instead of one couple and two universities making a boatload of money instead of one.

      I'm no fan of patents, but within the framework of patent law this seems the optimum outcome for society.

    15. Re:Two different things by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      It's also worth noting that Zhang was hardly the only person to be working on this - Church's group published a very similar article in the same issue of Science in 2013, and about a half-dozen groups were reaching similar conclusions at the same time, but they weren't as aggressive about filing patents.

    16. Re:Two different things by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      But Zhang wasn't the only person to figure this out - George Church's group reported similar results at the same time. The patent office inexplicably decided not to get Church's testimony on the conflict.

    17. Re:Two different things by nmr_andrew · · Score: 1

      Last year Zhang gave a talk where I work. Aside from (to me at least) coming off as very arrogant, he clearly made a huge point to NOT mention Doudna's work at any point during his talk.

      It's been mentioned indirectly above, and I'm sure it took some trial and error before it worked, but I can't possibly see how tweaking a nearly identical system in prokaryotes to work in eurkaryotes isn't obvious to one "skilled in the art". I also find asking for "fast track" approval of the patent to be pretty sleazy since MIT/Broad almost certainly knew of the Berkeley patent filing. Of course, you also have to wonder why the first filing wasn't fast tracked.

    18. Re:Two different things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My impression as to why the first patent wasn't fast-tracked is that that option wasn't available at time of filing. The rule allowing it was put in place later, which allowed the second patent filing to gain priority. It was an issue with transitioning to the newer first-to-file system.

      That said, I'm a biologist and not a patent attorney.

    19. Re:Two different things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The enzyme does actually work quite well in both prokaryote and eukaryote systems.

      It was Doudna's group who fused the crRNA and tracrRNA to simplify the biological system and convert it into a tool for use as a targeted DNA nuclease.

      Zhang's group did add an extension to the protocol that helps improve target specificity (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24157548), but this isn't in any way necessary to use the tool, nor does it count as independently inventing the technology (as Zhang claims).

    20. Re:Two different things by coldandcalculating · · Score: 1

      It should be pointed out that George church has a huge conflict of interest in making such a statement, as he and Zhang are still affiliated with editas, the company they founded together to capitalize on CRISPR technology. Doudna was part of the company for a time but left after the patent war blew up to found her own company, intellia.

      His statement that it is "anything but obvious" to adapt CRISPR to eukaryotic cells from bacteria would be refuted by pretty much any first year molecular biology student. Basically to get CRISPR working in mammalian cells is as simple as changing the DNA regulatory elements that drive expression of the Cas9 enzyme and the targeting RNA molecules from prokaryotic to mammalian elements. These elements are well understood and available essentially as "off-the-shelf" components and have been used to express literally thousands of non-native genes in mammalian cells by researchers for decades. And yes, this WAS the very obvious next step in the research, evident to many biologists. The "news and views" perspective article in the same issue of Science describing the landmark paper from Doudna/Charpentier specifically points out the tantalizing possibility of genome editing for gene therapy:

      "Jinek et al. realized that a highly specific, customizable RNA-directed DNA nuclease could be useful to edit whole genomes. Based on the 20-nucleotide guide section of the crRNA, the enzyme could theoretically introduce breaks at unique sites in any eukaryotic genome. As a proof of concept, the authors programmed Cas9 to cleave a plasmid carrying the gene encoding green fluorescent protein at predetermined loci using a single chimeric crRNA containing just the critical segment of the tracrRNA. DNA breaks induce cellular DNA repair pathways (9) and this can be harnessed to disrupt, insert, or repair specific genes of cells. Introducing DNA breaks at desired loci using just Cas9 and a chimeric crRNA would be a substantial improvement over existing gene-targeting technologies, such as zinc finger nucleases and transcription activator–like effector nucleases, as these require protein engineering for every new target locus (10). Efficient gene repair strategies in cells from patients, and the reintroduction of repaired cells, could become increasingly important for treating many genetic disorders."

      The size of the egos and paydays involved precludes any hope of a logical conclusion to the patent fight.

  4. Broad Institute? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 0

    Is this something to do with getting more women into science?

    1. Re:Broad Institute? by movdqa · · Score: 2

      "The Eli and Edythe L. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard (/brod/), often referred to as the Broad Institute, is a biomedical and genomic research center located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. The institute is independently governed and supported as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research organization under the name Broad Institute Inc.,[1][2] and is partners with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, and the five Harvard teaching hospitals." Rather interesting place. You've got Harvard, MIT and the Partners Healthcare hospitals - it's a pretty potent research institute.

    2. Re: Broad Institute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just call it the Institute. I heard their work on synths is quite outstanding.

  5. Well, IMHO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Both institutions may have received federal monies to support the research leading to CRISPR.
    If they did, then the 'ownership' should be public - as in: they receive nothing more than intellectual kudos,
    No Patents, no copyrights, no kickbacks.
    Enough of the institutional power plays.
    What about the scientists that did it? What do they get, besides a paycheck.....
    Just so much is not right in this...

    1. Re:Well, IMHO... by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      Generally, this is the first argument I make with universities patenting inventions developed while grant funded (grants almost always include a clause for government ownership of IP, and it is almost always ignored).

      However, Broad is largely privately funded. While they do get a lot of government money, they also have received over $700 Million in donations. It's that private money that allowed this (the expedited, well written patent filing) to happen.

      We all may grind our teeth at granting a valuable patent to a place where 12 very well connected people control a billion dollar research budget heavily subsidized by the government, but, a well written patent with clear ownership will greatly help this technology actually make it out of the twisted halls of academia and into some form the rest of us can use. Most academic patents are garbage that just make commercialization more difficult.

    2. Re:Well, IMHO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may want to reread the Bayh-Dole act, which basically leaves patenting of inventions made using government funds to private institutions/individuals. It is the result of the observation that the government is very ineffective at commercializing important technologies.

    3. Re:Well, IMHO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the government is very ineffective at commercializing important technologies

      Yes, but to justify the policy, you'd need to be claiming that government is very ineffective at licensing important technologies. Otherwise it's just a plain old giveaway masquerading under right-wing economics.

    4. Re:Well, IMHO... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of inventors profiting off it, even if paid for by government.

      The government will get their money back via increaed economic activity and taxes and other benefits (desire for which drives the research to begin with, remember, to call it into existence where it previously did not).

      The alternative is a system even worse than a communist system, which rewards innovation with perverse apings of capitalism like apartment upgrades and vacation trips. And we know how shitty that is in keeping up innovation compared to the west.

      Here, you propose the genius work for a meager salary and a hearty handclasp for success, then YOU walk away taking the benefits leaving the genius no better off.

      How horrid.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. Broad patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought broad patents were a bad thing. Should be specific.

    1. Re:Broad patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's a reference to Jennifer Doudna

  7. A better question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why should CRISPR be eligible for patent protection at all?

  8. Is that Crispy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or is that Cunchy?

  9. Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China will steal it and use it to benefit all of humanity.

  10. EDIT up 24% by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

    Edit was up 24% today. Picked this stock months ago.

  11. Re:A tool is not a product. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    If these patents are the properties of either MIT or UCB, then did these fine schools use their own funds for their works? Also, no federal funds or assets purchased were never used? Seems to me that there is another partner involved here; the American people.

  12. Changed under Bush by transami · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The U.S. Patent system has become a travesty. Rulings like this make me sick to my stomach. "Fast track" should never have passed legal muster.

    Moreover, it bothers me that the government can take someone's physical property to build a road or even a mall, but they don't apply eminent domain to life saving intellectual property.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
    1. Re:Changed under Bush by Hodr · · Score: 1

      But with eminent domain they paid you fair value (or their idea thereof), which can be determined because people buy and sell comparable property all the time. They also have to have appropriated funds for a specific task that requires purchasing that property. If you have a patent, it is supposed to be unique, so it would be hard for the government to accurately set a price and even if they could, assuming the technology / medicine/ whatever is as important as you believe it to be, the cost would be astronomical. Could the USDA or whichever organization afford to pay $10B per drug patent for every lifesaving medicine? If not, which ones do they choose?

    2. Re:Changed under Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a shit about lives? Money is what is important. Money is our One True God.

  13. Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are already CRISPR alternatives that are just as good or better -- I am working on a couple. Also, I am not sure how they can patent something that bacteria invented. I mean, what does Streptococcus Pyogenes get out it? Nothing. Maybe some antibiotics.

    1. Re:Alternatives by neoRUR · · Score: 1

      Yes soon someone will patent the Human Body and we will all have to pay for it.

  14. Re:Laws in general by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    The state of law has become such that it is now merely a tool wielded at the whim of the powerful. God help us all. Someone else said that the coming war will not be Civil for we are no longer civilized.

  15. Harvard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course Harvard won. The university so dominates the judicial caste that it's only a slight exaggeration to say Harvard IS the court. The MITtens were just along for the ride. And those uppity commoners at Cal never had a chance.

  16. Welcome to a new decade of crippled genetic scienc by Shepanator · · Score: 1

    CRISPR is a huge leap in genetic science, and could potentially eliminate all genetic diseases with enough widespread research. This patent is adding another barrier to the implementation of a treatment that could save millions upon millions of lives and save many many more from horrible suffering. If karma has a rock bottom, I think they just found it.

  17. Boys will be boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If its China, it will probably end up like Gattaca (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/) for the Chinese elite. And how do you test for genetically engineering athletes for the Olympics? Hmm.

  18. Changed in 2011 by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Under Obama.

  19. Re:A tool is not a product. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Bayh-Dole act relinquishes any claim by the American people (actually the United States government) because the government proved an ineffective steward of such patents.

  20. Re:A tool is not a product. by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    Patent law doesn't require physical products.

    But having said that, CRISPR is a synthetic recreation/modification of a part of the immune system. It can slice and dice genes very precisely.

    There is a lot of research into using CRISPR to cure cancers and prevent some genetic disorders. There are probably going to be a lot of things that use CRISPR in the near future.

    It is a very powerful tool---possibly as historically significant as the steam engine. This is the tool that helps us reshape genes, after all.

    Machines were niche products until we could power them with something besides people or farm animals. The ability to use them anywhere, refuel them immediately, and generate more power were all important. In a similar vein, CRISPR vastly expands our capacity for genetic engineering. It is almost impossible to predict what we will do with this newfound power.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.