Patent Law

Semantic ramblings on the meaning of "accept"

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

Lawrence B. Ebert said [19 March at 10:31am]
Do you consider text in a 31 Jan 08 post --Yamanaka accepted a state grant in August 2007-- accurate?

California Stem Cell Report said...[19 March at 2:09pm]
The statement concerning Yamanaka was contained in a direct quote from a piece by another writer. That writer is the one to ask about whether that is an accurate statement.

Nonetheless, our understanding is that Gladstone is using funds from CIRM to support Yamanaka. As far as we know, he has not declined to accept that support. Does that amount to "acceptance?" He could have declined the support. Some fine legal and semantic points there. Regardless, it is clear that CIRM's huge resources have made California attractive to Yamanaka and others.

IPBiz considers the discussion of "acceptance" as "failure to reject" reminiscent of Bill Clinton's ramblings on the meaning of the word "is."

Of the factual accuracy, IPBiz has previously posted:

Deepak Srivastava, GICD's director, said in a press release that
?Gladstone will provide Shinya with the resources and facilities to
apply his research to human cells.?
Yamanaka's work will not be funded by grants from Proposition 71 --
at least not inititally, according to Gladstone spokesperson Valerie Tucker --
allowing it to move forward without concern of whatever revenue-sharing
agreement is finally reached.

Leaving aside the question of whether the statement on californiastemcellreport was accurate (IPBiz
does NOT think it was accurate), one is left with the ethical implications of the statement:

The statement concerning Yamanaka was contained in a direct quote from a piece by another writer. That writer is the one to ask about whether that is an accurate statement.

If a writer relies on the accuracy of a statement that becomes challenged, the writer is responsible for checking it
out (or retracting).

Live by the slider, die by the slider.

Here, the folks in California ought to be concerned. If Yamanaka isn't being "directly" funded by CIRM, no cut of his patent royalties will be channeled back to California. If California taxpayers are content to bask in the glow that "CIRM's huge resources" helped Yamanaka get patents, royalties for which won't be going to them, that's fine.

See also

Did Yamanaka "accept a grant" from CIRM in August 2007?

On the absence of evidence that Yamanaka accepted a CIRM grant

Who are the embryonic [stem cell] cheerleaders?

Full post as published by IPBiz on March 19, 2008 (boomark / email).