While I could certainly complain about copyright and patent laws, they do serve a purpose in giving companies some assurance that if they go ahead and commit the huge resources necessary to develop a technology, they will be able to enjoy a period of exclusivity to recoup their investment. Speaking as an "insider" (but not for my company), I think the bigger problem has to do with companies failing to come up with a business strategy that earns them a good return without sacrificing the larger benefit to society of broad dissemination of their technology. To bring my musings back on point, are you certain that it's patents and copyrights that are truly the problem in the case of automation of cytometry? After all, there are numerous strategies for automation to get around existing patents and any schemes that are > 20 years old are off-patent anyway. -Dave David Basiji CTO, Amnis Corporation NOTE NEW CONTACT INFO: 2505 Third Ave., Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98121 (206) 374-7165 direct (206) 290-4511 mobile (206) 576-6895 fax www.amnis.com > -----Original Message----- > From: sterling stoudenmire [mailto:sstouden@thelinks.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:06 PM > To: Cytometry Mailing List > Subject: Re: Sweatshops of biotechnology > > > > I think it is fair to say, the technology does exists, but > too many different super class citizens (mega corporations > and NPOs) own the patents on it, so that it is nearly > impossible, and way too costly, to assemble the rights, in > one place, to create automation. > > has anyone done a patent search of the owners of the patents > that would be needed to be assembled as, owned or licensed, > inorder to make a fully functional automated flow cytometer? > > Science needs to follow, not the developments in new science, > but the ownership in the old science. Restricters and > retarders ( copyright and patent laws) impede the flow of > advancements in science and technology and generated major > interference in the development of affordable tools that can > be used to forge the future. sterling > > > > > At 04:27 PM 9/4/2002 -0400, Akos Szilvasi wrote: > > >We are a rather high volume biotech flow lab. I sent out a desperate > >letter over a year ago about the lack of automated cytometers. The > >situation is much worse this year. The volume is increasing (we > >generate up to 2.6 GB data a month - just analyzes, without > the sorter > >files). Most of that "manually" on the Caliburs. A genuine, > authentic > >sweatshop like the ones in Asia making sneakers or other garment. > > > >The flow cytometry labs are the bottleneck of biotech > research. We slow > >down the progress by not being able to handle enough samples. The > >manufacturers admit the problem, acknowledge the need but in > response > >new 9 color MANUAL cytometers come to the market with the > promise of a > >FUTURE automated sample handling extension as a teaser. > > > >The sad and disappointing aspect is that the whole biotech and other > >research is automated. The technology is out there. Only we have no > >access to it because no one bothers to adopt it (if they can > not invent > >such devices). > > > >How do you run 500+ sample experiments? > > > > > >Regards, Akos > > > >(PS: This is a 10+ years old request. ) > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:26:25 EST