(www.technologyreview.com)

167 points thisismytest | 1 comments | 17 Nov 24 03:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.227s | 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. m3047 ◴[17 Nov 24 17:54 UTC] No.42165629[source]▶

>>42162814 #

They might be trying to avoid discovery which voids side agreements concerning confidentiality and possibly collusion / cooperation. Such conditions coming to light might undermine defense of the same / related patents in other jurisdictions.

Hypothetically, and IANAL.

Edit: I'd say the article supports this interpretation.

↑

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