A response to californiastemcellreport on stem cell patents and applications
The californiastemcellreport made note of an IPBiz post critical of its failure to report on the Loring patent applications and on certain facts in the Cha duplicate publication matter.
Of note was the text:
Ebert is deeply concerned about the legal issues concerning the patents. Our perspective is somewhat broader. While certain actions -- either in the world of patents or politics -- may be legal, they are not necessarily in the best interests of society, science or business. An extreme non-science example: Racial segregation used to be the law of the land in many areas of the United States.
Ebert appears to be well-schooled in patent law. Others equally well-schooled differ with him. We are inclined to favor those who are on the side of open science rather than those who seek to lock down every piece of loose intellectual property they can find. But that is a value judgement -- not law.
LBE would note an extreme non-science example would be the presence of slavery in the United States, which of course was sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. [As a minor point of trivia, the Justice of the Supreme Court who created the "doctrine of equivalents" in patent law dissented in Dred Scott, and then resigned from the court because of the Dred Scott decision. Thus, one can be FOR patent rights but AGAINST social injustices, all at the same time. The Justice was Benjamin Curtis.]
LBE is not sure of the identity of any patent attorney who thinks that the PubPat/FTCR challenge will prevail, in view of the response made by WARF to the re-examination. Perhaps californiastemcellreport can provide the names of such well-schooled folks, and this post should be deemed an invitation to californiastemcellreport to do so. LBE's position was that the PubPat/FTCR challenges were not well-constructed, a position that LBE still holds. LBE did not take a position on the ultimate validity of the claims (which have now been altered; calling the WARF response a re-hash was simply wrong as a matter of fact).
LBE remains curious as to why californiastemcellreport and Mr. Simpson do not discuss the prior patent applications of Loring, which contained claims to stem cells which were broader in scope than those of Thomson. In the absence of such discussion, one wonders if the text of californiastemcellreport While certain actions -- either in the world of patents or politics -- may be legal, they are not necessarily in the best interests of society, science or business is meant to apply to folks outside of California (for example in Wisconsin) but not to folks in California. Thus, until californiastemcellreport and Mr. Simpson address the Loring applications, the statement We are inclined to favor those who are on the side of open science rather than those who seek to lock down every piece of loose intellectual property they can find appears as from one who tried, but was unsuccessful, in locking down intellectual property. This is but a different variation of the theme of Glenn Curtiss against the Wright Brothers, and a theme used by many others. Separately, but also relevant, is the fact that California will be trying to lock down intellectual property in an attempt to pay back California taxpayers.
LBE also remains curious as to the absence of discussion of the rudiments of Dr. Kim's claim as to the folks at Cha. While, no doubt, people in California are happy that the Cha "plagiarism" matter is leaving the U.S. press, the substantive issue of how Kim's thesis was copied by people with no direct involvement in Kim's thesis remains. Ironically, the events that happened may be legal, [but] they are not necessarily in the best interests of society, science or business. It is also curious that there is no further discussion of Cha's OTHER paper (published in JRM), in which one co-author (Lobo) had his named removed and the other co-author (Wirth) went to federal prison.
Of note was the text:
Ebert is deeply concerned about the legal issues concerning the patents. Our perspective is somewhat broader. While certain actions -- either in the world of patents or politics -- may be legal, they are not necessarily in the best interests of society, science or business. An extreme non-science example: Racial segregation used to be the law of the land in many areas of the United States.
Ebert appears to be well-schooled in patent law. Others equally well-schooled differ with him. We are inclined to favor those who are on the side of open science rather than those who seek to lock down every piece of loose intellectual property they can find. But that is a value judgement -- not law.
LBE would note an extreme non-science example would be the presence of slavery in the United States, which of course was sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. [As a minor point of trivia, the Justice of the Supreme Court who created the "doctrine of equivalents" in patent law dissented in Dred Scott, and then resigned from the court because of the Dred Scott decision. Thus, one can be FOR patent rights but AGAINST social injustices, all at the same time. The Justice was Benjamin Curtis.]
LBE is not sure of the identity of any patent attorney who thinks that the PubPat/FTCR challenge will prevail, in view of the response made by WARF to the re-examination. Perhaps californiastemcellreport can provide the names of such well-schooled folks, and this post should be deemed an invitation to californiastemcellreport to do so. LBE's position was that the PubPat/FTCR challenges were not well-constructed, a position that LBE still holds. LBE did not take a position on the ultimate validity of the claims (which have now been altered; calling the WARF response a re-hash was simply wrong as a matter of fact).
LBE remains curious as to why californiastemcellreport and Mr. Simpson do not discuss the prior patent applications of Loring, which contained claims to stem cells which were broader in scope than those of Thomson. In the absence of such discussion, one wonders if the text of californiastemcellreport While certain actions -- either in the world of patents or politics -- may be legal, they are not necessarily in the best interests of society, science or business is meant to apply to folks outside of California (for example in Wisconsin) but not to folks in California. Thus, until californiastemcellreport and Mr. Simpson address the Loring applications, the statement We are inclined to favor those who are on the side of open science rather than those who seek to lock down every piece of loose intellectual property they can find appears as from one who tried, but was unsuccessful, in locking down intellectual property. This is but a different variation of the theme of Glenn Curtiss against the Wright Brothers, and a theme used by many others. Separately, but also relevant, is the fact that California will be trying to lock down intellectual property in an attempt to pay back California taxpayers.
LBE also remains curious as to the absence of discussion of the rudiments of Dr. Kim's claim as to the folks at Cha. While, no doubt, people in California are happy that the Cha "plagiarism" matter is leaving the U.S. press, the substantive issue of how Kim's thesis was copied by people with no direct involvement in Kim's thesis remains. Ironically, the events that happened may be legal, [but] they are not necessarily in the best interests of society, science or business. It is also curious that there is no further discussion of Cha's OTHER paper (published in JRM), in which one co-author (Lobo) had his named removed and the other co-author (Wirth) went to federal prison.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 11:01 AM
1 Comments:
The California Stem Cell Report focuses almost exclusively on the California stem agency and matters directly related to it. The WARF issue, CHA and even the NAS are connected but more peripheral than many other matters, which require considerable attention -- such as the setting of the rules for giving away $222 million to California institutions to build new stem cell research labs. The issue of who is "right" on the WARF patents will never be resolved to the satisfaction of all. Someone will win and someone will lose, probably on the basis of legal minutia. We will continute to visit WARF matters from time to time, but do not intend to drill down much farther. Cheers.
Post a Comment
<< Home