X-Message-Number: 15350
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:05:11 -0500
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: Licensing of vitrification methods by CI - #15237

Just a point here which has not been made.

>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:57:26 -0500
>From: <>
>Subject: Licensing of vitrification methods by CI
>References:  <>
>
>Charles Platt wrote (message 15229):
>
>   CI has no god-given right to adopt procedures that are protected by
>   patents. CI can use these procedures if, and only if, the patent holders
>   grant a license. Ettinger has been reminded of this repeatedly, but has
>   always refused to mention it, preferring to imply that CI will adopt the
>   results of other people's research at its own discretion.
>
>Is this actually a possibility?  That is, is it a possibility that the
>holders of the patent would refuse to grant CI a license to use these
>techniques, supposing of course that CI was willing to pay the
>price they were asking?

If the purchaser of a technology is not willing to certify that the
technology will be used FULLY AS DEVELOPED and thus, so that its use
will not potentially discredit the developer/owner of the technology,
then it is entirely reasonable, ethical, and even dutiful to the owners
of the technology (shareholders of the company), that the technology be
refused to that buyer.
In fact, an ironclad agreement for implementation with full oversight by
the developer/owner is entirely reasonable and often done in such
limited market, complex technology situations.

-- Paul --

The Institute for Neural Cryobiology - http://neurocryo.org
A California charitable corporation funding research to
perfect cryopreservation of central nervous system tissue
for neuroscience research & medical repair of the brain.
Voice-mail: 416-968-6291  Fax: 559-663-5511

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15350