Team:UCSF/Human Practices

From 2008.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
'''Patents and iGEM'''
+
<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
 +
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
 +
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
-
In the course of studying how to manipulate gene expression by targeting heterochromatin, we came upon an interesting patent owned by Sangamo Biosciences (Richmond, CA): ''Modulation of Gene Expression Using Localization Domains'' (Wolffe A., et al. US Patent 6,919,204 B2.  The broad claims of this patent encompass:  
+
<head>
 +
<meta name=Title content="Human Practices">
 +
<meta name=Keywords content="">
 +
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=macintosh">
 +
<meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
 +
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11">
 +
<meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 11">
 +
<link rel=File-List href="Human%20Practices%20Final_files/filelist.xml">
 +
<title>Human Practices</title>
 +
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 +
<o:DocumentProperties>
 +
  <o:Author>Office 2004 Test Drive User</o:Author>
 +
  <o:Template>Normal</o:Template>
 +
  <o:LastAuthor>Andrew Horwitz</o:LastAuthor>
 +
  <o:Revision>2</o:Revision>
 +
  <o:Created>2008-10-28T19:26:00Z</o:Created>
 +
  <o:LastSaved>2008-10-28T19:26:00Z</o:LastSaved>
 +
  <o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
 +
  <o:Words>579</o:Words>
 +
  <o:Characters>3302</o:Characters>
 +
  <o:Lines>27</o:Lines>
 +
  <o:Paragraphs>6</o:Paragraphs>
 +
  <o:CharactersWithSpaces>4055</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
 +
  <o:Version>11.1280</o:Version>
 +
</o:DocumentProperties>
 +
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
 +
  <o:AllowPNG/>
 +
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
 +
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 +
<w:WordDocument>
 +
  <w:Zoom>125</w:Zoom>
 +
  <w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
 +
  <w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
 +
  <w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/>
 +
</w:WordDocument>
 +
</xml><![endif]--><![if !supportAnnotations]>
 +
<style id="dynCom" type="text/css"><!-- --></style>
 +
<script language="JavaScript"><!--
 +
function msoCommentShow(anchor_id, com_id)
 +
{
 +
if(msoBrowserCheck())
 +
{
 +
c = document.all(com_id);
 +
if (null != c)
 +
{
 +
a = document.all(anchor_id);
 +
var cw = c.offsetWidth;
 +
var ch = c.offsetHeight;
 +
var aw = a.offsetWidth;
 +
var ah = a.offsetHeight;
 +
var x  = a.offsetLeft;
 +
var y  = a.offsetTop;
 +
var el = a;
 +
while (el.tagName != "BODY")
 +
{
 +
el = el.offsetParent;
 +
x = x + el.offsetLeft;
 +
y = y + el.offsetTop;
 +
}
 +
var bw = document.body.clientWidth;
 +
var bh = document.body.clientHeight;
 +
var bsl = document.body.scrollLeft;
 +
var bst = document.body.scrollTop;
 +
if (x + cw + ah / 2 > bw + bsl && x + aw - ah / 2 - cw >= bsl )
 +
{ c.style.left = x + aw - ah / 2 - cw; }
 +
else
 +
{ c.style.left = x + ah / 2; }
 +
if (y + ch + ah / 2 > bh + bst && y + ah / 2 - ch >= bst )
 +
{ c.style.top = y + ah / 2 - ch; }
 +
else
 +
{ c.style.top = y + ah / 2; }
 +
c.style.visibility = "visible";
 +
} } }
 +
function msoCommentHide(com_id)
 +
{
 +
if(msoBrowserCheck())
 +
{
 +
c = document.all(com_id);
 +
if (null != c)
 +
{
 +
c.style.visibility = "hidden";
 +
c.style.left = -1000;
 +
c.style.top = -1000;
 +
} }
 +
}
 +
function msoBrowserCheck()
 +
{
 +
ms = navigator.appVersion.indexOf("MSIE");
 +
vers = navigator.appVersion.substring(ms + 5, ms + 6);
 +
ie4 = (ms > 0) && (parseInt(vers) >= 4);
 +
return ie4;
 +
}
 +
if (msoBrowserCheck())
 +
{
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomanchor","background: infobackground");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomoff","display: none");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","visibility: hidden");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","position: absolute");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","top: -1000");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","left: -1000");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","width: 33%");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","background: infobackground");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","color: infotext");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","border-top: 1pt solid threedlightshadow");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","border-right: 2pt solid threedshadow");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","border-bottom: 2pt solid threedshadow");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","border-left: 1pt solid threedlightshadow");
 +
document.styleSheets.dynCom.addRule(".msocomtxt","padding: 3pt 3pt 3pt 3pt");
 +
}
 +
// --></script>
 +
<![endif]>
 +
<style>
 +
<!--
 +
  /* Font Definitions */
 +
@font-face
 +
{font-family:"Times New Roman";
 +
panose-1:0 2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3;
 +
mso-font-charset:0;
 +
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
 +
mso-font-pitch:variable;
 +
mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;}
 +
@font-face
 +
{font-family:Arial;
 +
panose-1:0 2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2;
 +
mso-font-charset:0;
 +
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
 +
mso-font-pitch:variable;
 +
mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;}
 +
@font-face
 +
{font-family:"Lucida Grande";
 +
mso-font-charset:0;
 +
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
 +
mso-font-pitch:variable;
 +
mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;}
 +
/* Style Definitions */
 +
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
 +
{mso-style-parent:"";
 +
margin:0in;
 +
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
 +
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
 +
font-size:12.0pt;
 +
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
 +
p.MsoCommentText, li.MsoCommentText, div.MsoCommentText
 +
{margin:0in;
 +
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
 +
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
 +
font-size:12.0pt;
 +
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
 +
span.MsoCommentReference
 +
{font-size:9.0pt;}
 +
table.MsoNormalTable
 +
{mso-style-parent:"";
 +
font-size:10.0pt;
 +
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
 +
p.MsoCommentSubject, li.MsoCommentSubject, div.MsoCommentSubject
 +
{mso-style-parent:"Comment Text";
 +
mso-style-next:"Comment Text";
 +
margin:0in;
 +
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
 +
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
 +
font-size:12.0pt;
 +
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
 +
@page Section1
 +
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
 +
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
 +
mso-header-margin:.5in;
 +
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
 +
mso-paper-source:0;}
 +
div.Section1
 +
{page:Section1;}
 +
-->
 +
</style>
 +
</head>
 +
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US style='tab-interval:.5in'>
-
“methods and compositions for regulating gene expression.  In particular, methods and compositions comprising  localization domains, and fusions of localization domains with DNA binding domains and, optionally regulatory domains.”
+
<div class=Section1>
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><b>Patents and iGEM<o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
-
Would our synthetic chromatin project fall under this definition?
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
Sangamo is best known for developing technology to generate customized DNA binding domains—zinc-finger proteins that can be targeted to anywhere in the genome. Indeed, Sangamo’s iron-clad IP protection was highlighted in a recent Nature news and views discussing proprietary vs. open source customized zinc-fingers (''“The Fate of Fingers”'', September 2008).
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>In the course of studying
 +
how to manipulate gene expression by targeting heterochromatin, we came upon an
 +
interesting patent owned by Sangamo Biosciences (Richmond, CA): Modulation of
 +
Gene Expression Using Localization Domains (Wolffe A., et al. US Patent
 +
6,919,204 B2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>The broad claims of
 +
this patent encompass <o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
Does the Sangamo “Modulation…” patent discourage others from working on developing new methods in the area of gene expression control?  This possibility led us to think about patents in general, and what they mean for Synthetic Biology.
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
First, why do we need patents?
+
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:Arial'>“methods
 +
and compositions for regulating gene expression.<span style="mso-spacerun:
 +
yes">&nbsp; </span>In particular, methods and compositions comprising
 +
localization domains, and fusions of localization domains with DNA binding
 +
domains and, optionally regulatory domains.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
Patents provide an incentive to innovate by guaranteeing the inventor sole rights to his/her invention for a set period of time Furthermore, patents require public disclosure, which benefits everyone after the patent period expires. Compare this to a trade secret—the public may never know the exact formulation of Coca Cola.
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
However, patents could be detrimental to the public if they are too broad in scope.  If another person without rights to the patent wants to innovate and further develop an idea the incentive to innovate is deterred by having to ‘pay-to-play.’  Worse yet, there are ‘patent-trolls’ that accumulate or file a blizzard of anticipatory patents which can then be used to hold legitimate innovators hostage.
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>Would our synthetic
 +
chromatin project fall under this definition?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
Patent Trolls explained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOGoZFzHkhs
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
How does this relate to Synthetic Biology? The iGEM ideal is Open Source: a community sharing parts, devices, systems, and ideas. BioBricks are the best example of this spirit.
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>Sangamo is best known for
 +
developing technology to generate customized DNA binding
 +
domains&#8212;zinc-finger proteins that can be targeted to anywhere in the
 +
genome. Indeed, Sangamo’s iron-clad IP protection was highlighted in a recent
 +
Nature news and views discussing proprietary vs. open source customized
 +
zinc-fingers (“The Fate of Fingers”, September 2008).<span style="mso-spacerun:
 +
yes">&nbsp; </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
But what does this mean in regard to patent law?  In other words, could a Biobricked device be patented?  Should we allow this, or should a device made from open source parts not be ‘patentable?’
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
Further research led me to a page in the openwetware legal archive:  
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>Would the Sangamo
 +
“Modulation…” patent discourage others from working on developing new methods
 +
in the area of gene expression control?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;
 +
</span>This possibility led us to think about patents in general, and what they
 +
mean for Synthetic Biology. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
“1. You are free to modify, improve, and use all BioBrick parts, in systems with other BioBricks parts or non-BioBrick genetic material.
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>First, why do we need
-
2. If you release a product, commercially or otherwise, that contains BioBrick parts or was produced using BioBrick parts, then you must make freely available the information about all BioBrick parts used in the product, or in producing the product, both for preexisting BioBrick parts and any new or improved BioBrick parts. You do not need to release information about any non-BioBrick material used in the system.
+
patents?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
3. By using BioBrick parts, you agree to not encumber the use of BioBrick parts, individually or in combination, by others. “
+
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
I fully agree with these statements.  Open source parts that are further developed should be ‘patentable’ whereas the original parts used must remain open source.  However, this begs the question as to how open source Biobricked parts really are. Who really owns the open source part? An employee generally agrees to give the University or Company full ownership over all things made and invented in their lab.  In other words, is an open source part still open source if the University owner hasn't given permission?  This could be a controversial issue as the field of synthetic biology moves forward. At minimum, it seems that common sense dictates patents should never interfere with academic research. Could there be some sort of exemption for use of parts in the absence of commercial intent?
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>Patents provide an incentive
 +
to innovate by guaranteeing the inventor sole rights to his/her invention for a
 +
set period of time Furthermore, patents require public disclosure, which
 +
benefits everyone after the patent period expires. Compare this to a trade
 +
secret&#8212;the public may never know the exact formulation of Coca Cola. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-
---Jimmy Huang
+
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>However, patents could be
 +
detrimental to the public if they are too broad in scope.<span
 +
style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>If another person without rights to the
 +
patent wants to innovate and further develop an idea the incentive to innovate
 +
is deterred by having to ‘pay-to-play.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;
 +
</span>Worse yet, there are ‘patent-trolls’ that accumulate or file a blizzard
 +
of anticipatory patents that can then be used to hold legitimate innovators
 +
hostage.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>The original patent troll:
 +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOGoZFzHkhs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>How does this relate to
 +
Synthetic Biology? The iGEM ideal is Open Source: a community sharing parts,
 +
devices, systems, and ideas. BioBricks are the best example of this
 +
spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>But what does this mean in
 +
regard to patent law?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>In other words,
 +
could a Biobricked device be patented?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;
 +
</span>Should we allow this, or should a device made from open source parts not
 +
be ‘patentable?’<o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>Further research led me to a
 +
page in the openwetware legal archive: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:Arial'>“1.
 +
You are free to modify, improve, and use all BioBrick parts, in systems with
 +
other BioBricks parts or non-BioBrick genetic material.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:3.0pt'><span
 +
style='font-family:Arial'>2. If you release a product, commercially or
 +
otherwise, that contains BioBrick parts or was produced using BioBrick parts,
 +
then you must make freely available the information about all BioBrick parts
 +
used in the product, or in producing the product, both for preexisting BioBrick
 +
parts and any new or improved BioBrick parts. You do not need to release
 +
information about any non-BioBrick material used in the system.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:Arial'>3.
 +
By using BioBrick parts, you agree to not encumber the use of BioBrick parts,
 +
individually or in combination, by others. “<o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>I fully agree with these
 +
statements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>Open source parts that
 +
are further developed should be ‘patentable’ whereas the original parts used
 +
must remain open source.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>However,
 +
this begs the question as to how open source Biobricked parts really are. Who
 +
really owns the open source part? An employee generally agrees to give the
 +
University or Company full ownership over all things made and invented in their
 +
lab. In other words, is an open source part still open source if the University
 +
owner hasn't given permission? This could be a controversial issue as the field
 +
of synthetic biology moves forward. At minimum, it seems that common sense
 +
dictates patents should never interfere with academic research. Could there be
 +
some sort of exemption for use of parts in the absence of commercial intent?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'><![if !supportEmptyParas]>&nbsp;<![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Arial'>--Jimmy Huang<o:p></o:p></span></p>
 +
 
 +
</div>
 +
 
 +
<div style='mso-element:comment-list'><![if !supportAnnotations]>
 +
 
 +
<hr class=msocomoff align=left size=1 width="33%">
 +
 
 +
<![endif]></div>
 +
 
 +
</body>
 +
 
 +
</html>

Revision as of 19:27, 28 October 2008

Human Practices

Patents and iGEM

 

In the course of studying how to manipulate gene expression by targeting heterochromatin, we came upon an interesting patent owned by Sangamo Biosciences (Richmond, CA): Modulation of Gene Expression Using Localization Domains (Wolffe A., et al. US Patent 6,919,204 B2.  The broad claims of this patent encompass

 

“methods and compositions for regulating gene expression.  In particular, methods and compositions comprising localization domains, and fusions of localization domains with DNA binding domains and, optionally regulatory domains.”

 

Would our synthetic chromatin project fall under this definition?

 

Sangamo is best known for developing technology to generate customized DNA binding domains—zinc-finger proteins that can be targeted to anywhere in the genome. Indeed, Sangamo’s iron-clad IP protection was highlighted in a recent Nature news and views discussing proprietary vs. open source customized zinc-fingers (“The Fate of Fingers”, September 2008). 

 

Would the Sangamo “Modulation…” patent discourage others from working on developing new methods in the area of gene expression control?  This possibility led us to think about patents in general, and what they mean for Synthetic Biology.

 

First, why do we need patents?

 

Patents provide an incentive to innovate by guaranteeing the inventor sole rights to his/her invention for a set period of time Furthermore, patents require public disclosure, which benefits everyone after the patent period expires. Compare this to a trade secret—the public may never know the exact formulation of Coca Cola.

 

However, patents could be detrimental to the public if they are too broad in scope.  If another person without rights to the patent wants to innovate and further develop an idea the incentive to innovate is deterred by having to ‘pay-to-play.’  Worse yet, there are ‘patent-trolls’ that accumulate or file a blizzard of anticipatory patents that can then be used to hold legitimate innovators hostage.

 

The original patent troll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOGoZFzHkhs

 

How does this relate to Synthetic Biology? The iGEM ideal is Open Source: a community sharing parts, devices, systems, and ideas. BioBricks are the best example of this spirit. 

 

But what does this mean in regard to patent law?  In other words, could a Biobricked device be patented?  Should we allow this, or should a device made from open source parts not be ‘patentable?’

 

Further research led me to a page in the openwetware legal archive:

“1. You are free to modify, improve, and use all BioBrick parts, in systems with other BioBricks parts or non-BioBrick genetic material.

2. If you release a product, commercially or otherwise, that contains BioBrick parts or was produced using BioBrick parts, then you must make freely available the information about all BioBrick parts used in the product, or in producing the product, both for preexisting BioBrick parts and any new or improved BioBrick parts. You do not need to release information about any non-BioBrick material used in the system.

3. By using BioBrick parts, you agree to not encumber the use of BioBrick parts, individually or in combination, by others. “

 

I fully agree with these statements.  Open source parts that are further developed should be ‘patentable’ whereas the original parts used must remain open source.  However, this begs the question as to how open source Biobricked parts really are. Who really owns the open source part? An employee generally agrees to give the University or Company full ownership over all things made and invented in their lab. In other words, is an open source part still open source if the University owner hasn't given permission? This could be a controversial issue as the field of synthetic biology moves forward. At minimum, it seems that common sense dictates patents should never interfere with academic research. Could there be some sort of exemption for use of parts in the absence of commercial intent?

 

 

--Jimmy Huang

Retrieved from "http://2008.igem.org/Team:UCSF/Human_Practices"