IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Taq patent

Eivind Hovig ehovig at radium.uio.no
Mon Jan 31 19:57:48 EST 2000


In article <87574i$cme$1 at agate.berkeley.edu>, lhom at OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Louis
Hom) wrote:

> If I recall correctly, the fraudulent part of the patent application had
> to do with the description of the prior art (they failed to disclose
> that relevant work had been done previously in a Russian lab(?) that they
> knew about), thus affecting what was "novel" about the work described in
> the patent.  It sounds like a problem that occurred in the technology
> office AFTER the bench work was done and the notebooks were turned
> in.  (Am I implying that scientists are more scrupulous than lawyers?  not
> intentionally.)
> 


You need to refresh. They were convicted of claiming to have performed
experiments that were not done, etc. To me it appears as if they
intentionally misleaded patenting authorities to obtain a patent on matter
that would otherwise not have been patentable. The Promega web site has
the full story, by the way, as of course they were the Roche opponents in
court. 


> As for patents and progress, remember that the process for making MAbs
> didn't get patented.  Maybe monoclonals didn't revolutionize molecular
> biology the same way that PCR did, but I think they did lead to some great
> discoveries and some interesting derivative technologies.

Good and valid point!


Eivind Hovig




More information about the Methods mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net