Taq Polymerase Ad/Any uses other than PCR?
berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Mon Oct 9 19:19:29 EST 1995
On 9 Oct 1995, Sami Kohan wrote:
> In article <SMI-0410951856290001 at 188.8.131.52> David G. Jensen,
> SMI at sedona.net writes:
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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%.
> I always get annoyyed when I see non-science questions on this newsgroup
> but I couldn't help myself. Why shouldn't Roche collect royalties on PCR.
> They own the patent to the technique. Do you not believe in patents? Or
> do you not believe in patents when they are held by large profitable
> companies(which you seem to be implying). How does everyone win if
> intellectual property rights are not preserved.
I suggest you discuss this in more details (another
For untrained ear the very term "intellectual property"
sounds like an oddity. Perhaps it is. No matter what we
do such things like copyright, intellectual ownership
(and in a long run patents) are most likely to go.
If I republish somebody's work it is plagiarism. If
I combine two works & reshuffle it is creative
development. Agree/disagree ?
More information about the Bioforum