BTW there is a patent pool being formed by MPEG LA to license CRISPR. It seems to be similar to patent pools for video codecs.
* http://www.mpegla.com/main/pid/CRISPR/default.aspx
* http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachme...
* http://www.mpegla.com/main/pid/CRISPR/default.aspx
* http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachme...
...you are not. What is this insanity?
"We are the world’s leading packager of patent pools for standards and other technology platforms used in consumer electronics, as well as chemical, eCommerce, education, energy, environment, healthcare and biotechnology, manufacturing and materials, transportation and wireless technology. We developed the pool market space. (view link) Our business model supports a large number of patent users – creating reasonable access and profitable opportunities for all parties."
MPEG LA, LLC is a firm based in Denver, Colorado that licenses patent pools covering essential patents required[1][2] for use of the MPEG-2,[3] MPEG-4 Visual (Part 2), IEEE 1394, VC-1, ATSC, MVC, MPEG-2 Systems, AVC/H.264 and HEVC standards.
MPEG LA is not affiliated with MPEG, the Moving Picture Experts Group.
Doesn't that mean MPEG LA is affiliated with MPEG?
MPEG LA, however, would like you to believe that, seeing as LA is (or at least, was) an abbreviation of Licensing Authority -- something they clearly aren't.
They have no biomedical or biochemical expertise. They have no hand whatsoever in discovering or understanding any science at all. It now appears as though they would like to try to get another group of mega-companies in a room to cross license their patents on Cas9 variants - there are as many (natural) variants as there are bacteria out there, and there are a combinatorially large number of synthetic variants on top of those. The Berkeley/MIT faceoff you've likely heard about in the news is over a very broad patent on using Cas9 therapeutically, but the space of natural Cas9 variants is actually broader still than even that patent could cover.
We as a country need to have a conversation about patents and how the policies that work for computer code may not be the same policies that work for small molecules, which may not be the same processes that work for genetically encoded materials. Each of those technologies are all extreme in terms of the cost of R&D, verifiability, producibility, reproducibilty, and longevity. It is difficult to shoehorn each of these technologies into the same patent framework.
That's very kind. They also historically have done everything they can to keep the pool alive by evergreening it, and allowing companies to evergreen it. They also have done pretty much everything they aren't supposed to since the original BRL the DOJ sent (https://www.justice.gov/atr/response-trustees-columbia-unive...)
People keep saying this about whole host of issues, and it makes me wonder if that's ever happened about anything. Have Americans ever "had a conversation" about any issue and decided anything collectively like that?
How is that not a valuable service?