The Long-Shot Bid to Put Crispr in the Hands of the People
wired.com
wired.com
Some of the new CasX, and CasY proteins [2] in these alternative crispr systems are actually even smaller than the original Cas9 proteins. I'm not sure how related it is, but the land grab associated with a broad patent has come with a large exploration effort to find alternatively systems that still provide similar utility.
As these kind of synthetic biology tools come online there definitely needs to be some reanalysis of how the tools should comport with the patent system, it being ultimately for the public good. As what's being built today in synthetic biology is very much the nascent infrastructure, the comparison to the rollout of the internet is not an unfair comparison.
[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7640/full/nature2...
I think what pisses people off is the preponderance of insiders. People who buy Editas before the court results go public, but have enough inside information to deduce Broad would win the ruling. If you think it's impossible for insiders to figure out how a court ruling will go based on private proceedings, you're forgetting that they discovered CRISPR in the first place and are way savvier overall.
It doesn't matter if Broad loses an appeal. It doesn't matter if there is even a single therapy ever developed with Cas9. The stock jumped 29%. Every insider made huge money off information that wasn't public.
You can't go and investigate every trade, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that's what pisses people off. It's not the public good part. Believe me, no one cares about the million other patents the MIT licensing office owns that won't make any money. Nobody even cares about your new invention that will take decades to develop.
They just care about the preposterous get-rich-quick scheme that is the stock market reacting to court cases.
You didn't need to be an insider to see the obvious outcome.
If you did nothing else but follow Jacob Sherkow's posts on Twitter, a novice investor could have taken his information lead, done some further due diligence, and come to the same conclusion.
Or here, read document 891 in the case:
https://acts.uspto.gov/ifiling/PublicView.jsp?identifier=106...
That's Berkeley desperately attempting to respond to having been smoked at the oral arguments. Look at how the panel chose to respond to Berkeley trying to submit new evidence. The panel had already made up its mind by that point in my opinion. There were numerous things the panel could have pursued further after the first (and only) oral arguments, that they chose not to tipped their hand again.
Still don't like the odds involved in buying call options on EDIT? Ok, easy, hedge: NTLA also had call options available. To make matters even better, both CRSP and NTLA had sold down heavily leading up to the verdict (CRSP crashed by ~40% in a month). NTLA was available for $12 or $13 per share for the whole month prior to the verdict (it's IPO price was $22 or so). When an outcome is so dramatic for a stock as this verdict, if you hedge call options, the huge spike will trivially compensate for the downside on the other stocks.
I sat on most of my calls for two to four months prior to the verdict, with most of them having a May expiration. So a few points:
1) I made some guesses on how long the verdict was likely to take based on history and based on how the case was going. For example, did they follow the oral arguments up with a round of interviews involving some of the prominent people involved. Sherkow I'll note nailed the verdict date almost exactly and provided his own reasoning for why he thought it would be in February.
2) At the time I purchased a lot of my calls, May was the furthest out date available. There was almost no liquidity (I purchased some of the first calls ever available on EDIT). Once I bought, I knew I'd need to commit or take a beating trying to unload them near-term. However, over the months, August calls became readily available (so one could have taken an opportunity to roll them; eg sell some calls on an upswing, which EDIT was prone to due to its very low float, wait for a drop, if one occurs then load the August calls at potentially cheaper than what you sold the May calls for).
3) I specifically began buying after EDIT's stock was, in my opinion, bottoming out. It went into the $40s almost right after the IPO, due to a hyper low float and lock-up (plus fuzzy understanding + hype about CRISPR at that point in time). It dropped for about five straight months from those highs. By October 1st it looked to be near a floor, so I began stalking it, it proceeded to double then triple bottom right before the election.
If you had timed it freakishly well, you could have gotten May 2017, $17.50 calls for around ~$1.75 ($175 per contract) right before the election. They peaked recently at $11.x.
4) By timing the stock itself moderately well on bottoming - that is, by paying what I considered to be a cheap price on a well sold down stock - I was able to buy the calls very inexpensively. Why did that matter? Part of the bet was that it wouldn't just stay on the floor for the coming months leading up to the patent verdict and hearing (NTLA for example rallied significantly at one point before crashing back down). By the time it was ~$18 / share, my calls had already appreciated considerably, giving me a convenient exit if I wanted it, or I could just pull my principle. I didn't need to hold through the verdict, I could just take a 100% return or so and walk. That angle helped to offset (if I wanted to sell some) the risk of being forced to wait it all out and watching my position potentially expire worthless.
I also did one other thing that ended up being extremely profitable. I sold some of my calls for a nice gain in the $18s before the verdict came out. Keeping in mind I had no idea it would 100% be in February. So let's say I sold some $17.50s for May 2017 at that point for a good profit. I took some of those gains (not the principle), and acquired even more calls than I had sold, but for the $17.50s calls for March, on a very heavy discount. I paid $1.25 or something for those in the weeks before the verdict. When EDIT spiked in the days following the verdict, those were worth six to eight times what I paid for them and they were purchased solely with prior profit (if I ended up being wrong and the verdict didn't come out in time for the March expiration, I only put my gain at risk on the May calls I sold to do that).
I recently read "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell and each chapter highlighting an economic concept included examples of government policy relevant to the subject. Such as rent control, price controls in agriculture, zoning, industry licensing, etc. Almost all of them had similar unintended side effects as seen here (ie, rent controls intended to reduce rent prices resulted in a shortage of affordable housing for poor people in NYC, Toronto, etc). They almost always create an imbalance where the negative side effects largely outweigh the intended benefits.
I'm not sure leaving such highly technical debates, such as whether or not you can patent a low level protein, should be left for random courts to decide.
How do we solve such a prevalent problem? Should the legislation then become more specific to make sure it has it's intended purpose? Or would that ultimately lead to endless complexity in law? Creating loopholes and increased difficulty/cost to implement?
The easy answer that some people take is that government should largely not be involved in this type of stuff but I'm always interested in exploring alternatives. But otherwise this stuff is largely ignored outside of the usual generic complaints about regulations coming from business groups each year, yet it continues to persist as a black/white issue in politics.
CRISPR is such a critical and important technology, it'd be a shame if it was held back by unintentional interpretations of law.
The corporation everyone loves to hate.
On the flip-side, I haven't heard any compelling way for Monsanto to recuperate the costs of R&D on their engineered crops. I'm sure a lot of people would be happy to see GM crops go away altogether, but I don't think that's a compelling solution.
Prior to seed companies, seed stock was bread by farmers, universities and done in a way that was more open an accessible.
We have been in overproduction of corn, grain and rice for over a decade. They haven't saved the world from hunger. Hunger still exists and has always been a distribution problem. In 2008, the food crisis was caused because investment companies started trading in grain futures and wouldn't let go (where as a food producer invests in a grain future because they plan on buying it in x months in order to make cereal or pizza crust or whatever). There was plenty of food though. The food shortage was literally manufactured.
> any compelling way for Monsanto to recuperate the costs of R&D on their engineered crops
It wasn't a problem that needed to be solved. On the flip side, now we have all this corn and grain that needs to be sold. Sure some of that can be turned into fuel, but a lot of it is pushed out in starchier food. We're consuming so much starch and sugar that we're now in an obesity epidemic. The food industry keeps pushing out advertising so people consume more of it. It's a cycle that's not been beneficial for many people.
[1] https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
Furthermore, natural DNA sequence cannot be patented, full stop. There's zero ambiguity about this. Only inventions can be patented, and relevant here is the 'invention' of cDNA made from an organisms RNA that is required for many genetic techniques.
https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/us-supreme-court...
If you're a commercial entity, it's 100M.
If you had such a stellar therapy, and you couldn't get it past Editas, you'd go to Europe and partner with any number of a dozen other entities there that would be guaranteed to be interested (such as Novartis, which owns part of NTLA).
In short, if you want to sell a product, Editas gets right of first refusal to license from Broad, and only if they refuse would the startup be able to proceed to license. If you just want to use CRISPR for in house research, you have to license it; no idea if the fees are prohibitive.
Editas acquired Cpf1 exclusivity for just $16 million upfront [1], in the form of cash plus a note. Intellia and Crispr Therapeutics, as two examples, will be able to license Cas9 from Broad for their various programs for a lot closer to $20m upfront plus royalties (so far as their therapy paths don't directly collide with Editas).
http://ir.editasmedicine.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=254265&p=irol-n...
Company or private person submits a patent.
The government determines what they would pay to make the technology open (i.e., benefits to society). This is similar to the process of determining the subsidy to develop new technology.
Government makes an offer. Submitter can accept or reject.
If rejected, the patent remains secret, but other companies have the right to independently invent the same technology.
If accepted, the patent is published. If other companies want to use the technology, they will need to buy a license from the government. Submitter has no control over who may or may not use the technology.
Without patents there's a risk that the creator keeps their invention secret forever and then it's forgotten. This could still happen today, but if the invention details are ever leaked you'd have no ability to stop others from making and using it and no ability to demand money for it (though you could sue the person who leaked it, but only civilly).
I think in cases like this where it's unlikely to have been a trade secret anyway the justification that the patent is in the best interest of the public or is 'promoting the progress of science and useful arts' is harder to make. This is especially true when the research is the result of public funding (though I'm not sure that was true in this case).
http://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-differen...
Wi-Fi patents are held by the Australian government and feed back into their University system.