←back to thread

Two Nobel Prize winners want to cancel their own CRISPR patents in Europe

(www.technologyreview.com)
167 points thisismytest | 4 comments | 17 Nov 24 03:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
bawolff ◴[17 Nov 24 08:28 UTC] No.42162814[source]▶
I feel like this is missing the why of it all.

They aren't cancelling the patents because of some ethical medicine-must-be-free reason. They are cancelling them because they are about to be revoked. A sort of, you-can't-fire-me-if-i-quit-first move.

But why? Is there some sort of precedent they are seeking to avoid? Is this just them giving in the towel and looking to avoid further legal fees? Why are they cancelling instead of just letting the process play out?

replies(3): >>42162838 #>>42165484 #>>42165629 #
1. j16sdiz ◴[17 Nov 24 08:34 UTC] No.42162838[source]▶
If the EU patent is revoked in court in EU, the court in other country almost certainly will revoke the equivalent patent in their country because the precedent.
replies(1): >>42162862 #
2. bawolff ◴[17 Nov 24 08:40 UTC] No.42162862[source]▶
Which other country? Surely you dont mean for EU member states, since the patent would now be cancelled.

For other countries, with different legal systems? The ruling wouldn't be binding as precedent of foreign courts doesn't bind and the law on what makes a valid patent is different. Maybe it looks kind of bad, but so does cancelling your patents right before they are ruled invalid.

replies(2): >>42163026 #>>42167834 #
3. oezi ◴[17 Nov 24 09:24 UTC] No.42163026[source]▶
There are still national patents possible even if you don't need them once you have a European one.
4. kolinko ◴[17 Nov 24 22:14 UTC] No.42167834[source]▶
IANAL, but precedents are generally not binding in Europe (Poland at least) - they just serve as an argument. From that perspective it doesn’t matter much if it’s the same or a different country.

(may be wrong here)