The CRISPR IP battle is being fought between universities, not corporations. CRISPR aside, the IP situation in biotech and specifically in synthetic biology (p

The CRISPR IP battle is being fought between universities, not corporations. CRISPR aside, the IP situation in biotech and specifically in synthetic biology (parts-based biology) is not a good one. Currently there exists IP around many small DNA components (you can think of them as genes though this wouldnt be correct in all cases - more like DNA programs). Currently in biology, if I want to build a composite part, that incorporates many separate parts, each with IP around them, I need to get a license for all of those parts. The tech industry had a similar problem back in the "golden age" of computer parts development. It is often so expensive and difficult for any innovation to happen to happen under these circumstances, as so many patents and licenses and what not must be obtained, which typically frightens investors from putting cash in small startups. The tech industry has solved this with EDA tools - we need something similar in biotech. What I'd call a DNA Part or cassette, techs call an "IP" or silicone block IP. They have worked out a system where it appears the big design software houses act as brokers and clearing houses for their users. They aggregate not only the necessary licenses, but also the documentation and design rules for how to use a specific part. Then the design tool compiles all these parts down into something that is sent for synthesis by the foundry. They're really light years ahead of the biotech industry on this. I recommend this fascinating overview of how intellectual property rights in integrated circuit design have evolved. It would be great to see similar things happen in my industry. http://timreview.ca/article/442 http://timreview.ca/article/442