PCR Ligation Issues!!!

ChenHA hzhen at freeuk.com
Thu Sep 29 13:04:43 EST 2005


On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:43:51 GMT, dk at no.email.thankstospam.net (DK)
wrote:

>Yes, that was it. Material Transfer Agreement. Sloan Kettering's one
>read pretty close to what you describe. And no, I don't believe for
>a second that Dr. Schuman himself came up with this inanity.  
>

It didn't click when you first mentioned Sloan Kettering because I
wasn't the one making the request for the construct, but on checking,
yes, it's Sloan Kettering.  It is just as well that I wasn't the one
making the request, or I would have sent back a very rude letter.


>OTOH, not all institutes/lawyers are like that. I know that the place
>where I work sends MTAs that demand "only" a share from anything 
>that may come out of the patent. 
>
>Like with so many things, layewrs/patent/copyright laws are becoming
>obstacles rather than a help. With the ways MTAs read today, one
>would be fool to accept any of them whenever there is a chance 
>a real money will be involved. I mean, I come up with a "killer 
>application" using someone's antobody at the R&D phase and 
>they patent the whole thing? How ridiculous is this? What if I used
>two antibodies and one vector - then what - three other persons
>claim rights to my invention? Just plain stupid. 

Very true.

>DK



More information about the Methods mailing list