Dr. Donald S. Fredrickson 
September 28, 1976 
Page 2 
In short, Cetus Corporation intends to be active in this area and 
is willing to pay fair license fees, on an equal basis with others, 
on commercial applications. We would vigorously oppose the granting 
to anyone of an exclusive license of any sort whatsoever. 
We have previously stated that we endorse and applaud the NIH guide- 
lines, and that we have specific ideas about appropriate, somewhat 
different guidelines for industrial research and commercial applica- 
tion. Regardless of what decisions are made with respect to the 
patents, the public interest requires that these decisions be made 
openly in some process as yet to be defined. 
Now to our reasoning. Probably, you have heard, as have we, that many scien- 
tists feel that there is a significant difference between the all-encompassing 
nature of the Stanford/UCSF patent and the University of Alabama patent. The 
latter, as we understand it, is much more in the way of an application gener- 
ated in response to the first discovery. There will undoubtedly be many such 
derivative applications. It is the feeling of many that it is inappropriate to 
attempt to patent something as fundamental as a way of making recombinant DNA 
molecules. This is clearly something for the patent office, not for us, to 
decide. In this case, where the patent is restricted to the United States, the 
response to its broadness may consist of attempts to circumvent it. Particularly, 
if exclusive licenses are granted; those not licensed may feel that they have 
little choice but to look to remedies such as practising the invention outside 
the United States. That is not in the interests of the United States. Far 
better, we feel, to have it clear that HEW and Stanford University and UCSF 
have made an investment and facilitated am unprecedented scientific breakthrough 
for which they are entitled to a reward, and that nonexclusive fees are a fair 
and equitable vehicle for such reward. In the past exclusive licenses may have 
been seen as the only way to motivate industry to make the necessary investment 
to develop an invention to the point where there would be something to exploit 
commercially . This is clearly not the case here. Many companies have already 
asserted their intention to become involved in the field - it is difficult to 
understand how any significant biologically-based company could do otherwise. 
But this brings us to the second major issue, and that involves safety and 
the public interest. As I stated in my previous letter to you, dated July 29, 
it is vitally important that the industrial community be imbued with the same 
concerns and awareness that prompted the academic community to begin the pro- 
cess which resulted in the promulgation of the NIH guidelines. Prudence, 
restraint, and sophisticated scientific judgment have to be combined in the 
determination of what work shall be done, in what sequence, and at what rate. 
The very nature of an exclusive license and particularly one with a short 
time limit, would encourage speed at the expense of the prudence which in the 
[ 95 ] 
