Taq Polymerase Ad/Any uses other than PCR?

David G. Jensen SMI at sedona.net
Wed Oct 4 20:56:29 EST 1995


In article <DFvJqH.MI at cc.umontreal.ca>, szat at ERE.UMontreal.CA (Szatmari
George) wrote:

> In article <44o0hg$n2b at saba.info.ucla.edu> Sami Kohan <skohan at ucla.edu>
writes:
> >I was flipping through a Science magazine and noticed an ad for Taq
> >polymerase with a disclaimer at the bottom which said that something to
> >the effect that certain procedures which called for Taq are covered by a
> >patent and that no license came with purchases from this vendor. I took
> >that to mean that if you use this for PCR, you're breaking the law.
> >However, why else would anyone want Taq polymerase?



This might have been an ad for Promega Corporation. In my opinion, this
company should be the sole source of Taq for ALL labs. That's because the
company is fighting a huge battle with Roche over the ability for anyone
in the USA to do research using PCR without having to pay Roche for the
license. They are literally David taking on Goliath, and it seems to me
that they are all alone in this effort. Other companies should have jumped
in to help them defray their legal costs. . . but, instead Promega's
competitors choose to sit on the sidelines and/or cave in to Roche,
waiting for the results of the lawsuit (which appears to be going in
Promega's favor). When Promega wins, EVERYONE wins. 

And the fact of the matter is that it won't affect the bottom line at a
company the size of Roche more than about .00000001%.


Dave Jensen, Search Masters International

The opinions above are personal and do not necessarily reflect the
policies and opinions of my employers.



More information about the Bioforum mailing list