Re: Inquiring minds, NovaRed, and Secrecy
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>
From: | "J. A. Kiernan" <jkiernan@julian.uwo.ca> |
To: | "vector@vectorlabs.com" <vector@vectorlabs.com> |
Reply-To: | |
Date: | Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:56:31 -0400 (EDT) |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Craig Pow (vector@vectorlabs.com) wrote:
> choice. The assumptions by J. A. Kiernan about Vector NovaRED are
> incorrect. We are not willing to be involved in a discussion on why some
> products are proprietary.
Just for the record, I (J. A. Kiernan) did not make any assumptions
about Vector NovaRed. I speculated that the reaction product
might dissolve in either an acidic or a basic environment, and
recommended doing the obvious simple test. It would not give
away the identity of the chromogen in NovaRed to say what its
oxidation product does and does not dissolve (or decompose) in.
It is surprising that the product was put on the market without
any information about such a simple matter as the solubility
properties of the final reaction product.
> Vector Labs is certainly not unique in offering
> proprietary products, and it should be made clear that companies such as
> Vector manage to stay in business by protecting their intellectual
> property.
This is a valid point, but secrecy is not a very effective
kind of protection. Another company with a smart chemist on
the staff might well come up with an identical product and
sell it under another name, with or without saying what it
really is. A patent, in which the nature of the product is
disclosed, is the safe form of protection. It costs quite
a lot, but allows the inventor to confidently sue another
company that copies the patented invention. For a patented
peroxidase chromogen there would be no need for secrecy.
All this was discussed at some length on HistoNet about a
year ago, when we were all told that the tyramide amplification
method, which embraces a whole family of peroxidase chromogens,
was patented, even though detailed instructions for easily making
labelled tyramides have been published in the regular peer-
reviewed scientific literature. The point was made by various
people that not many individuals would synthesize their own
labelled tyramides. A research worker doing so would risk
getting sued but probably would not be, because (a) his actions
would not significantly erode the patent holder's market, and
(b) the researcher wouldn't have enough money to pay the
settlement when he/she lost the case. Another company making
and selling labelled tyramides would be another matter
altogether.
Another important argument against secret products is that they
cannot be used by people who have to justify their actions.
This includes research workers, who are subject to peer review
for publication and for the awarding of money to do research, and
also pathologists, who risk being ridiculed in court by attorneys
skilled in the demolition of expert witnesses. Research and
pathology must surely account for a major proportion of the
market for chromogens used in peroxidase histochemistry.
John A. Kiernan,
Department of Anatomy & Cell Biology,
The University of Western Ontario,
LONDON, Canada N6A 5C1
E-mail: kiernan@uwo.ca
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>