3 ms·

Recognition is one thing. In the case of the MIT CRISPR patent, US8697359, that patent recognizes Feng Zhang as the inventor. The patent also recognizes a LOT

Recognition is one thing. In the case of the MIT CRISPR patent, US8697359, that patent recognizes Feng Zhang as the inventor. The patent also recognizes a LOT of prior art, in particular, publications from UC (A CRISPR Approach to Gene Targeting, ...) and UC patent applications (WO2016011080A3, ...). Assignment, however, is another thing entirely. That patent has been assigned by Feng Zhang to The Broad Institute (MIT). https://www.google.com/patents/US8697359 https://www.google.com/patents/US8697359 So pretty much the world is already the way you want it to be. Multiple researchers are getting recognized at multiple levels for their work. But know that there's a huge difference between recognition and assignment of ownership. For example, Transmeta did some innovative work in low power x86 emulation. But I don't think that anyone recognizes Intellectual Ventures for their now owning Transmeta's patent portfolio.

alextheparrot 10y ago
My apologies, I believe, after your explanation, that my intent was to use the word "assign" instead of "recognize". Thanks for taking the time to explain the difference.
- CalChris 10y ago
  So if you are going to have a intellectual property system, then someone has to own that property. That starts with Inventor and then proceeds to Assignee (which never changes) through Legal Events to the current owner. If you're gonna have a property system then you have to have ownership. You can have multiple Inventors and, failing Assignment to a third party, then each Inventor will have equal rights. Also, you really really have to declare everyone because if you don't they can come in later and claim ownership regardless of later transfers. So there can be multiple ownership (but VCs are gonna hate that). Also, with the tennis ball vs yellow tennis ball example, there's a 'form' of multiple/conflicting ownership. Berkeley can't manufacture yellow tennis balls and Harvard/MIT can't manufacture tennis balls at all. Unless they both come to the table and agree.

alextheparrot 10y ago

My apologies, I believe, after your explanation, that my intent was to use the word "assign" instead of "recognize". Thanks for taking the time to explain the difference.

CalChris 10y ago
So if you are going to have a intellectual property system, then someone has to own that property. That starts with Inventor and then proceeds to Assignee (which never changes) through Legal Events to the current owner. If you're gonna have a property system then you have to have ownership. You can have multiple Inventors and, failing Assignment to a third party, then each Inventor will have equal rights. Also, you really really have to declare everyone because if you don't they can come in later and claim ownership regardless of later transfers. So there can be multiple ownership (but VCs are gonna hate that). Also, with the tennis ball vs yellow tennis ball example, there's a 'form' of multiple/conflicting ownership. Berkeley can't manufacture yellow tennis balls and Harvard/MIT can't manufacture tennis balls at all. Unless they both come to the table and agree.