Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!hes
From: hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer)
Newsgroups: net.bio
Subject: Re: Copy protected Genes
Message-ID: <906@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Dec-85 09:21:22 EST
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.906
Posted: Fri Dec 13 09:21:22 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Dec-85 00:24:20 EST
References: <970@cadovax.UUCP> <878@ecsvax.UUCP> <982@cadovax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: NC State Univ.
Lines: 76

> >> 
> >>In addition, Monsanto is witholding what it learns about new bio-engineering
> >> techniques as proprietary.
> >
> >   Is this any different than what every other company does for its research?
> 
> No, but there seems to be a trend in that more private institutions are
> doing the research and less public institutions (Universities etc.).

   Maybe more disturbing is that more public institutions (Universities, etc.)
are starting to do contract work with restrictions on publication and
dissemination of the research results.  I know of at least one such situation
(this company may be more reasonable than average) in which the company 
requires the university researcher to give them all manuscripts before
submission for publication.  The company legal staff screens them for
possible patentable material - and can hold them up for quite some time
if necessary to submit a patent application.  However they can not keep the
results from being published.

> We can all benifit from University research in that findings are published
> and reach the entire segment of an industry.  This makes it easier for 
> new companies to compete in the marketplace who may not have the immense
> budget of the few big guys.  What I'm worried about is that Monsanto may
> become the IBM of the bio-engineering market such that no one can afford
> the R&D budget to compete with them, leaving Monsanto as GOD of the industry,
> and everyone else just follows behind fighting over the table scraps.
> 
   There are other companies, such as Agrigenetics, which will provide
competition.  I'm not sure that you would feel any better about having 
competition between several large coporations, than you would about having
only one dominant corporation.

> Of course this implies that the problem is not with the way Monsanto does
> business, but perhaps the way the U.S. government is deciding to deal with
>the funding of University research etc.  Or perhaps the way the U.S. government
> is apparently ignoring gross anti-trust infringements.
> 
> >   It seems to me that you are making a major distinction between research
> >on plants and other types of R&D.  People and companies copyright and patent
> >all sorts of things.  There are laws against copying integrated circuits,
> 
> Yes this is true, the only reason I am making such a distinction, is that 
> it has recently come to my attention that the stifling market
> techniques that (in my opinion) have gotten way out of hand in the computer
> industry (IBM) are also occuring in other industries.  I guess I shouldn't
> have been terribly surprised.  I just hate to see other big companies win
> their anti-trust suits, giving them an apparent green-light to go ahead and
> impose a monopolizing sort of effect on an entire industry.
> 
   I am also concerned about the economic future of this country - after seeing
how corporate maneuvering seem to be rewarded more than productivity.
However I feel that this is a very widespread problem, and I'm not sure that
doing away with patents and copyrights (and their equivalents in bio-
technology) would provide any net improvement in the situation.

> >> Keith Doyle
> >
> >--henry schaffer
> 
> I'd just hate to see ALL plant breeders have to pay royalties to Monsanto
> (or someone) because Monsanto had the $$$ to develop a major new breakthrough
> first, especially if the new breakthrough is sufficiently 'tied-up' in
> patents and integrated so well into the market that no-one can compete that
> dosen't somehow utilize the new breakthrough in such a way that they have
> to pay royalties or risk patent-infringement.  In the computer industry at
> least, IBM clone manufacturers DON'T have to pay royalties to IBM (at least
> not yet) but I could imagine that it could happen to some industry someday.
> ... 
> Keith Doyle
> P.S. I can't help it, I'm suspicious of big companies.  Remember those rumors
> about gas companies buying up efficient alternative energy car designes so
> they could sit on them?
   I'm also suspicious - but I believe that most of those rumors (they do get
started periodically) are hoaxes.

--henry schaffer