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

Context and Institutional Interests

• Clarification that the Broad Institute, though affiliated with MIT and Harvard, owns its own IP and licenses CRISPR patents.
• Some see a potential conflict of interest or slant because the article is from an MIT-owned outlet and involves a dispute with a Broad researcher.

Why Cancel the CRISPR Patents?

• Several commenters argue the cancellation is strategic: the patents were likely to be revoked anyway, so this is a “you can’t fire me, I quit” maneuver.
• Hypotheses include:
  • Avoiding a formal revocation that could influence courts in other jurisdictions.
  • Avoiding discovery that might expose confidential side agreements or collusion relevant to related patents.
• Legal implications across EU vs national patents and foreign courts are debated; overall impact is described as unclear.

International IP, “Theft,” and Catch-Up Strategy

• Some praise China’s lax stance toward foreign patents, framing IP as illegitimate property; others see it as industrial theft.
• Historical analogies: US, Germany, Japan, Netherlands copied or spied on foreign tech during their own industrialization, then later became strong IP enforcers.
• Prediction that China will eventually enforce its own patents against poorer countries.
• Note that Chinese companies already sue for patent infringement domestically and abroad.

Are Patents Good for Innovation?

• Anti-patent side:
  • Argues patents now mostly hinder innovation, especially when research is heavily publicly funded.
  • Suggests trade secrets, trademarks, and open science/“GPL-like” models as better fits.
  • Points to trivial patents, patent trolling, moat-building, and weak ROI (especially in academia).
• Pro-patent side:
  • Claims patents are an important incentive for costly R&D and cross-domain contributions.
  • Emphasizes their role in negotiations, settlements, and enabling non-wealthy experts to start companies.
  • Open to reforms: shorter terms, higher novelty thresholds.

Alternatives, Motivation, and System Effects

• Debate over whether, without patents, firms would simply rely more on trade secrets, potentially harming public disclosure.
• Open source and intrinsic motivation are cited as examples that innovation can thrive without direct IP rents.
• Others stress many fields (biotech, hardware) require substantial capital and organizational backing, which they believe patents help justify.