Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

There seems to be a lot of confusion concerning this issue, and I'd
like to make a few points without (I hope) either breaching any
confidences or taking sides.

1. Bio-Rad holds a licence to a patent taken out by Cornell University
covering multiphoton microscopy (or on a tighter reading covering
only sub-picosecond multiphoton microscopy).  There are both EEC and
US patents but not an Australian one.  Both US and EEC patents were
challenged in court.  The EEC one was overturned but was reinstated
on appeal.  Zeiss were leading parties in these legal challenges.
Further legal challenges may eventuate but that is the current
position to the best of my knowledge.

2. Bio-rad have not licensed the patent to other makers with a very
few exceptions (the only one I know is Till Photonics, who have a
licence for certain northern European countries only).  Whether this
is because Cornell don't want them to, or Bio-rad don't want to, or
other makers don't want to pay, is something I have no formal knowledge
of.

3. So far as I know, no legal action has yet been taken against other
companies making multiphoton microscopes, though I am sure lawyers
letters have been sent.  This can partly be ascribed to the uncertainty
over the patent position during the various legal challenges and
partly to technical grounds for circumventing the patent (eg selling
a microscope as a second harmonic microscope, or using a picosecond
laser).

4. Bio-Rad Microscience (aka Bio-Rad Cell Science Division), makers of
the confocal microscopes, are a small UK company and rather peripheral
to the major interests of the US Bio-Rad organization.  In my personal
opinion it is the US company who wish to sell their British associate,
and not the British company who wish to sell out to Zeiss.

5. From Zeiss' point of view, buying Bio-Rad Microscience is almost
certainly cheaper than fighting any further legal action against them.

6. Zeiss is a much bigger company and if they were to decline to
license the technology to other manufacturers they would be in a
much better position to enforce that in the courts.  In other words,
if they wanted to they could prevent anyone else selling MP systems.
However this may not be their intention - they may well be happy
to make money by licensing the technology.  I have no information
(nor even any rumours) about their intentions in this regard and I
do feel that it would be a great benefit to the microscopy commmunity
if Zeiss stated their intentions.

7. Bio-Rad do have many useful and valuable technologies of their own
(some already touched upon in this group, others not) many of which
are patented.  It would obviously be a loss to the community if these
ceased to be available.  They also manufacture a confocal microscope
(the Cell-Map) at a price far lower than anything in the Zeiss catalogue.
Again, the loss is clear if Zeiss were to discontinue it.  Zeiss' plans
on these issues are not known to me.

8. Bio-Rad have a large installed base, and many of their customers
(certainly here in Australia) are very happy with the service they
receive.  Probably Zeiss intend to continue to provide service
for these instruments but an assurance would be nice ....

                                                      Guy Cox




Quoting "Mcnamara, George" <[log in to unmask]>:

>   I strongly urge everyone with a opinion on the sale of Bio-Rad's advanced
> microscopy unit to Zeiss, to tell the UK Competition Commission what you
> think. They've solicited advice - please give it to them.
>
>   A November 2003 article from Watt Webb and colleagues "indicates that 66%
> of these studies made use of laboratory-built systems ... The remaining
> one-third employed commercial systems -- 27% from BioRad and 3.5% each from
> Zeiss and Leica." On the other hand, they go on to write that most of the
> papers in their survery were from a small number of research groups. Their
> projection for 2004 is for 200 multiphoton publications, so it is becoming
> more widespread.
>
> Reference: Warren R. Zipfel, Rebecca M. Williams, Watt W. Webb (2003)
> Nature
> Biotechnol 21: 1369-1377.
>
> I doubt Zeiss is going to sue any academic labs who assemble a
> do-it-yourself system, especially if they buy their own laser and put it on
> a Zeiss "NLO ready" confocal microscope. Industrial labs (biotech, drug
> companies, others) understand how to evaluate the cost benefit ratio of
> buying from Bio-Rad(?), Zeiss, Leica, or alternative technology that might
> bypass the MP laser scanning patents.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> George McNamara, Ph.D.
> Imaging Scientist
> Congressman Julian Dixon Image Core
> The Saban Research Institute of Childrens Hospital Los Angeles
> 4650 Sunset Blvd., MS 133, SRT 1016
> Los Angeles, CA 90027
> 323-669-2548 voice
> 323-251-8878 cell
> 323-668-7921 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> http://shelia/image <http://shelia/image>      Image Core Web (CHLA
> Intranet)
> \\ntapps49\home Image Core User Home (Intranet)
> \\ntapps49\appnotes     Image Core Application Notes (Intranet)
> http://www.childrenshospitalla.org/research.html
> <http://www.childrenshospitalla.org/research.html>  CHLA Research Institute
> http://home.earthlink.net/~geomcnamara
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~geomcnamara>                 Personal web site
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johann Engelhardt [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 3:24 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bio-Rad - UK Competition Commission
>
>
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
> <http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal>
>
> Colleges,
>
> besides all the concerns about the installed bases, and whatever the
> motivation is at Biorad and Zeiss, I see additional problems for the
> future.
> I think that Zeiss could come into quite strong position.
>
> What might happen, when they know that we will have to buy (for legal
> reasons instead of for performance reasons) the confocal anyway from them,
> if we want to use 2-Photon now or, if we just want to be safe for our
> future plans.
> The big companies are already not too vivid in their development and the
> instruments are already pretty expensive.
> I guess everybody wants to be able to combine and buy the best from all
> worlds for his reasearch and exclusivity is a problem, also and especially
> here.
>
> regards
> Johann Engelhardt
>
>
>


--
Associate Professor Guy Cox
Electron Microscope Unit, F09
University of Sydney NSW 2006
+61 2 9351 3176