After having spent several weeks studying the case law and patent procedures, I have come to the conclusion that Doudna/UC were naive and sloppy in their original approach to the CRISPR IP and public positioning. Morality aside, I believe Broad has the stronger U.S. claim, at least legally speaking. It's typically not the court's position to rectify the mis-steps of others. The processes are what they are, and the law is what it is, and the onus is on the claimant to properly protect themselves.