Arsenal manager Unai Emery admits he’s in the dark when it comes to Juventus’ interest in Aaron RamseyAfter talks broke down over a renewal, Ramsey is set to leave Arsenal this summer as a free agent once his contract expires in June.Five teams are understood to be interested in signing Ramsey on a pre-contract agreement this month for next season.But only Juventus have come forward so far and confirmed their interest in the Welsh midfielder.Speaking ahead to Arsenal’s FA Cup game against Blackpool this Saturday, Emery revealed that he’s unsure if there has been an approach from Juventus yet.“I don’t know,” admitted Emery on Arsenal.com.“I want his focus every day with us on training and thinking for the next match, which is against Blackpool.“I am looking at him and he’s very concentrated with us now. On Tuesday, he scored when he played 15 minutes, and he gave a good performance.Fiorentina owner: “Ribery played better than Ronaldo!” Andrew Smyth – September 14, 2019 Fiorentina owner Rocco Commisso was left gushing over Franck Ribery’s performance against Juventus, which he rates above that of even Cristiano Ronaldo’s.“I want that from him, and also he needs to [look] at his future. But I want him in the present with us. At the end of the season is the moment he can go to one team or another team.Meanwhile, reports have linked Real Madrid goalkeeper Keylor Navas with a surprise £16m switch to Arsenal in this month’s transfer window.The Costa Rica international has fallen behind Thibaut Courtois in the pecking order at Real and he’s only started two Copa del Rey games under new manager Santiago Solari.“Not true,” replied Emery on rumours over Navas joining Arsenal.On whether there is interest, he added: “I don’t know. We never speak about one goalkeeper because I think – and it’s true – we are very happy with the three goalkeepers we have now.“We’ve never spoken about Keylor Navas.The Spaniard confirmed Mesut Ozil remains a doubt for the game this weekend after missing training this morning.
Students took to the street Tuesday in demonstration against the death of two students in a road crash in Dhaka Sunday. File photoAgitating students from different schools and colleges blocked key intersections on Wednesday morning in the capital Dhaka, protesting against the killing of two college students in a road crash on Airport Road on Sunday.The students’ demonstration largely disrupted movement of traffic in most parts of the city.The protesters also demanded resignation of the shipping minister Shajahan Khan for patronising ‘unlicensed’ drivers and showing misdemeanor after the death of the two students.The students of Government Science College, Dhaka took to the street in Farmgate area Wednesday morning.Students also held processions across Mohammadpur around 9:00am.Many people were seen moving on foot to reach their destinations in Mirpur. Those who have a far destination like Gulistan or Old Dhaka were seen waiting for buses.On Sunday, Diya Khanam Mim and Abdul Karim Rajib, students of the college section of Shaheed Ramiz Uddin School and College, were killed as a ‘Jabal-e-Noor Paribahan’ bus ploughed through some students in front of Kurmitola General Hospital on Airport Road.
CRISPR-associated protein Cas9 (white) from Staphylococcus aureus based on Protein Database ID 5AXW. Credit: Thomas Splettstoesser (Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 4.0) Citation: CRISPR patent wars highlight problem of granting broad intellectual property rights for tech that offers public benefits (2017, November 17) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-11-crispr-patent-wars-highlight-problem.html CRISPR-Cas9 is a cutting-edge gene editing technique. It has been in the news as many researchers are using it to conduct gene editing research. But it has also been in the news because two parties are claiming they invented it. They are the University of California and the Broad Institute. It is believed that patent rights will generate a significant amount of revenue for the ultimate winner of the war due to licensing rights.As Rai and Cook-Degan note, the patent war (or another one like it) has been in the making for several decades due to passage of the Bayh-Dole Act back in 1980, which allowed entities to obtain patents on work done for federally funded research efforts. In the CRISPR war, both parties received funding from NIH and both applied for patents, but the timing is murky. But as the authors also note, something that should not be lost or overlooked in the legal wrangling is the rights of the public. If one party in the war wins, they are set to assume control over who can use the gene editing technique and in which sorts of ways. In granting such full ownership to a single entity, the courts could be hindering genetic research in possibly detrimental ways. What if a team of researchers is making progress on eliminating a genetic disease, for example, but is slowed because it cannot gain licensing to proceed? Innocent people might thus suffer due to a court decision. The authors suggest that the solution is for the courts to move away from granting broad patents in such cases and instead grant narrow patents that allow the holder some rights, but not all, creating a more open system of use for cutting-edge technology. (Phys.org)—Duke University Law professor Arti Rai and bio-technology professor Robert Cook-Deegan with Arizona State University have stepped into the gene editing patent war with an Intellectual Property Policy Forum paper they have had published in the journal Science. They suggest that courts should take more into account than who invented what first in some property rights disputes. With technology, such as CRISPR-Cas9, for example, they argue that some thought (and rights) should to be given to the public as beneficiaries of future research efforts related to that technology. Journal information: Science © 2017 Phys.org Explore further Gene editing patent ruling sways fortune of biotech hopefuls More information: Racing for academic glory and patents: Lessons from CRISPR, Science 17 Nov 2017: Vol. 358, Issue 6365, pp. 874-876, DOI: 10.1126/science.aao2468 , http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6365/874SummaryThe much-publicized dispute over patent rights to CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology highlights tensions that have been percolating for almost four decades, since the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 invoked patents as a mechanism for promoting commercialization of federally funded research. With the encouragement provided by Bayh-Dole, academic scientists and their research institutions now race in dual competitive domains: the quest for glory in academic research and in the patent sphere. Yet, a robust economic literature argues that races are often socially wasteful; the racing parties expend duplicative resources, in terms of both the research itself and the legal fees spent attempting to acquire patents, all in the pursuit of what may be a modest acceleration of invention. For CRISPR, and future races involving broadly useful technologies for which it may set a precedent, the relationship between these competitive domains needs to be parsed carefully. On the basis of legal maneuvers thus far, it appears that the litigants will try for broad rights; public benefit will depend on courts reining them in and, when broad patents slip through, on updating Bayh-Dole’s pro-commercialization safeguards with underused features of the Act. This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.