Sir

Philippe Ducor points out in his Commentary (Nature 387, 13–14; 1997) that due to “the wise licensing policy of non-exclusivity and modest pricing adopted by the owner (Stanford University), [recombinant DNA] technology was widely distributed and contributed enormously to the subsequent development of commercial biotechnology. However, the outcome would have been radically different if Stanford had chosen instead a restrictive licensing strategy⃛ or granted no licences.”

Figure 1: There were two errors in the figures in Gottfried and Wilson’s article1.
figure 1

The corrected Fig. 1 (above) illustrates the coupling constant (as) of QCD as determined today from various experiments and calculations, compared with the range of values determined in 1983. The term “Fragmentation” was incorrectly labelled “1983”. In Fig. 2, the green line referred to in the caption was incorrectly printed blue.

Full size image

This is true. But this policy was set carefully so as to generate the largest possible return without causing the patent to be contested. Companies wishing to use the technology weighed the cost of royalties against the cost of a suit and eventually all decided it was cheaper to pay royalties. If one of the other options suggested had been taken, it is likely that the patent would have been contested and there is a significant probability that the patent would have been ruled invalid.

Stanford and the University of California have already gathered hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties on this basic patent, despite the “modest pricing”. The work that gave rise to this technology and its key patents was paid for by ordinary people through their tax dollars used for basic research. Ordinary people have subsequently had to pay many times over the original investment through patent royalties. Should people be penalized for having spent tax money wisely in the first place?