To begin, it's a patent dispute, not copyright. It's a dispute over the process of using mRNA targeting with Cas9 proteins, not the Cas9 genetic sequence itself (which is what copyright would be).
Secondly, their assumption "Copyrights [or Patents] are intended for artistic works." is only partly true - their main purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts, e.g. knowledge.
Whenever you have a technique that provides value like this, there is typically an amount of work that is invested into ensuring that the process works. Expensive work. Lots of highly trained people with expensive tools and expensive supplies that you don't see unless you're in the industry.
The groups are disputing over who came up with the process first because they've invested a ton of resources into it already, and they want to distribute that cost to people who are using this new, novel process today. A better article would have been about the new first-to-patent rule, which is what the court case is really about.
Yes, the CRISPR dispute is about patents. But, as the article says in the third paragraph, "But in the midst of this debate, perhaps a more fundamental one is taking place", which clearly indicates it's talking about a different debate than just the CRISPR patent.
The issue here is that CRISPR is like a printing press when scribes were state of the art. Yes, the patent on the printing press is important, but arguably more important is what's the status of all the stuff you can write with it. Previously, synthesizing long stretches or precisely editing DNA was hard enough that there weren't many people doing it (and synthesizing long pieces of DNA de novo is still pretty niche, though there are some pushing for a massive investment in making this tech a lot easier). But as it becomes easier and people get more experienced, it's worthwhile to have already thought through and discussed these issues.
>"But in the midst of this debate, perhaps a more fundamental one is taking place - whether some of CRISPR’s future products, like customized DNA, qualify as copyrightable entities."
That's the full sentence in context, and no, the CRISPER-cas9 patent dispute isn't over copyrighting the products of the technique. This author is trying to generate outrage over copyrighting DNA which this issue isn't about. The issue is over first-to-file.
Hold the phone; these groups are compensated by their own universities, the capital they raised by-and-large public agencies... Science is not supposed to progress only in the direction where there is a market or profit to be made.
Not true - they're also funded with royalties from previous patents. If UC wins this case (for example), then 35% of royalties will go to the inventors and the rest towards further research/university budgets.
True. Some of the first copyrighted items after copyright was established in 1790 were charts and maps which are very much like software, ie. follow a procedure to obtain a useful result, (ex. using a map, find out where you are).
To begin, it's a patent dispute, not copyright. It's a dispute over the process of using mRNA targeting with Cas9 proteins, not the Cas9 genetic sequence itself (which is what copyright would be).
Secondly, their assumption "Copyrights [or Patents] are intended for artistic works." is only partly true - their main purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts, e.g. knowledge.
Whenever you have a technique that provides value like this, there is typically an amount of work that is invested into ensuring that the process works. Expensive work. Lots of highly trained people with expensive tools and expensive supplies that you don't see unless you're in the industry.
The groups are disputing over who came up with the process first because they've invested a ton of resources into it already, and they want to distribute that cost to people who are using this new, novel process today. A better article would have been about the new first-to-patent rule, which is what the court case is really about.