4 ms·
I think you may be misunderstanding how the Bayh-Dole act works. The Stanford-Roche case looks like it hinged on a very particular set of circumstances involvi
by natechols 5y ago
I think you may be misunderstanding how the Bayh-Dole act works. The Stanford-Roche case looks like it hinged on a very particular set of circumstances involving a signle researcher working in both academia and industry, and the dispute was basically over who owned his work. The CRISPR case is different because the competing labs claim to have made the invention independently, with zero crossover. Even if Broad Institute were a for-profit corporation and not siphoning up vast amounts of NIH grants, the underlying dispute has nothing to do with Bayh-Dole or university IP policies, it's just a classic case of "who was first".
- gameswithgo 5y agoposter was arguing that things should work differently than they do. for some reason it is common when people argue for change for them to get lectures about how things are. weird stuff.
- nohuck13 5y agoThe poster was arguing that, when a university/corporate partnership invents something, the law should ensure the university doesn't get screwed. The responder was pointing out, in this case, the law could be infinitely strong in allocating credit to the university but it wouldn't help because this case was about whether they invented the thing at all.