Two Nobel Prize winners want to cancel their own CRISPR patents in Europe
Two Nobel Prize–winning CRISPR pioneers are seeking to cancel their own European patents, prompting questions about whether this is an ethical stance on access to medicine or a legal tactic to avoid an expected revocation and its ripple effects in other jurisdictions. Commenters use the case to probe the wider patent system, arguing over whether IP law genuinely incentivizes innovation or mainly entrenches monopolies, fuels patent trolling, and forces companies into costly legal and design‑around maneuvers. The thread also highlights geopolitical angles, such as China’s and Japan’s historical use of loose IP enforcement to catch up industrially, and notes potential conflicts of interest given that MIT’s own Broad Institute is a major CRISPR patent holder.
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.