Subject: My contribution for patent sdiscussion

Date: 31.01.2006

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for moderating this email discussion group and for the balanced first discussion.

As a holder of several patents I would like to clarify my interest in patenting.

First and foremost I did not do it to be rich.  While I have received some royalties I can hardly say that during the past 12 years that the royalties have been substantial.  In fact in the US, only 1 in a 100 patents makes any money and only 1 in a 1000 patents produce considerable income.

As pointed out in the earlier message, as state and federal funding decreased, industry has provided funds for research that I wished to do.  With those funds came the requirements that useful work be protected through patents.  Furthermore and most importantly, they offered the opportunity to quickly convert research findings into immediate technology transfer.  This appealed to me greatly as I often believed some research was never used when it was not patented.

We must take care when we discuss patenting.  The target is
changing.  Where originally whole genes and linked markers could be patented, now in most cases only individual polymorphisms used to improve some trait can be patented.  This limits claims and raises the overall cost of patenting.  In fact, it may limit future patenting. It also in some sense encourages big methods patents. As an inventor I do not like these changes but accept them. I do not like patents filed by non inventors.

Patents are useful publications and protection for researcher's
efforts. They can help move technology into practice.  As researchers we must consider that patents are not by themselves inherently evil or wrong.

Best regards,

Max Rothschild
Professor, Iowa State University

Other contributions of 31 January 2006