[DeTomaso] NPC...You may want to Delete?

[JJD1010 at aol.com]

I'm not sure it's that simple. What if they had a gene sequence that  was 
highly beneficial but then did nothing with it? In the latest issue of Pop  
Science they describe just such a case related to a rice gene that made it  
resistant to a common type of blight. Monsanto licensed the gene, but then  
did nothing with it, preventing others from doing the same. Seems there s/b 
some  sort of moral obligation in a case like this? 
 
Or perhaps, gene licensing s/b based on a large up front payment, an  
"investment" if you will, and not so much on downstream fees. The  company 
getting the license would then have so much skin in the game they would  have to 
push development to get their "investment" back.
 
I'm not sure what the best answer is.
 
Jeff 
6559
 
 
In a message dated 1/20/2011 2:50:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
kenn_green at yahoo.com writes:

You  probably won't be happy that the Obama Administration is taking an 
anti-patent  stance.  The Justice Dept filed a brief in "The Association of 
Molecular  Pathology v. The United States Patent and Trademark Office" in the 
Supreme  Court case opposing gene patents held by Myriad Genetics.  
Basically,  they want to force the company to give away the technology they spent big 
 bucks to develop.  A real feel good thing, share the wealth with  everyone.