license for TAQ

Bernard Murray bernard at elsie.nci.nih.gov
Tue Apr 16 13:23:43 EST 1996


In article <fn3jpEAP+1cxEwMV at genesys.demon.co.uk>, duncan at genesys.demon.co.uk 
says...

>...PCR is obvious but if an academic had invented it at around
> the same time as Mullis you can be sure that either their University
> would have made every attempt to patent it...

I think its pretty clear he didn't "invent" it but patented it and
popularised it after realising the potential (which does deserve
credit). [Here I use "invent" in its old meaning = came up with the
idea first/did it first, rather than the new legal context which 
causes so much confusion ~ patented it first]
	Also, the patenting explosion is a relatively recent occurrence.
For instance, do you remember the original monoclonal antibody paper and
how at the time they couldn't convince people that it was worth
marketing because no one could see the potential?  On the surface of it
the original manuscript looks like an immunological curiousity as it
is not packaged as "here's a great *generally applicable* way to make
loads of specific antibody".
	Alas, good science appears to come second to good packaging...

			Bernard

Bernard Murray, Ph.D.
bernard at elsie.nci.nih.gov  (National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda MD, USA)




More information about the Methods mailing list