Will the Supreme Court End Human Gene Patents? 228
An anonymous reader writes "Monday, the Supreme Court will hear a case on the validity of breast cancer gene patents. The court has a chance to end human gene patents after three decades. From the article: 'Since the 1980s, patent lawyers have been claiming pieces of humanity's genetic code. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted thousands of gene patents. The Federal Circuit, the court that hears all patent appeals, has consistently ruled such patents are legal.
But the judicial winds have been shifting. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the legality of gene patents. And recently, the Supreme Court has grown increasingly skeptical of the Federal Circuit's patent-friendly jurisprudence.
Meanwhile, a growing number of researchers, health care providers, and public interest groups have raised concerns about the harms of gene patents. The American Civil Liberties Union estimates that more than 40 percent of genes are now patented. Those patents have created "patent thickets" that make it difficult for scientists to do genetic research and commercialize their results. Monopolies on genetic testing have raised prices and reduced patient options.'"
Re:The government doing something right? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't have high expectations for any institution that's over 10% Scalia, but once in a while the government does manage to do the right thing, at least for the wrong reasons.
This will get struck down (Score:4, Interesting)
Then again, I supposed Citizens United is very unpopular too, and that seems to have passed...
Monsanto? (Score:3, Interesting)
The test (Score:5, Interesting)
IMO, all of the comments and discussion about whether genes are inventions or discoveries or natural or artificial are completely irrelevant.
The purpose of the patent system is to advance the useful arts and sciences. Given that there is obviously a lot of scientific (and commercial) value in identifying the functions of particular parts of our genetic code, that's something we want to encourage. Patents are supposed to do this by encouraging research results to be published so that other researchers can use them for inspiration and as building blocks. If that's not happening, then patents aren't providing any value.
So, a very simple test: If researchers routinely use the patent database as a source of inspiration and a place to find tools to solve specific problems, and are very willing to look for and license patents that help them make progress, then they're good and useful. If, however, patents are an obstruction, if researchers actively avoid looking at patents to avoid possible treble damages from willful infringement, or if they block useful avenues of research, then they're not providing any value and should be discarded.
The question of whether something is invented or discovered is just semantics with no real impact on whether or not it's useful or whether or not patent protection will accelerate or slow progress in the field.
Re:Wrong approach (Score:4, Interesting)
Natural phenomena? Wrong argument, lefty. Our genes were wholly Created six thousand years ago by Our Lord in the image of His Holy Sequences. Hence, no human can claim invention on a gene in the face of Divine Prior Art.
Re:This will get struck down (Score:4, Interesting)
The same reason the court ruled in favor of Citizens United is why they rule against gene patents.
On a more favorable front. The SEC is likely to require all publicly traded corps to publish their political activities.
Most companies fear public backlash more than their non-favored candidate in office.
Put the Case in Context (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Natural vs artificial (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? If you don't like patented organisms, you don't have to use them. Me, some of my favorite things exist because of patents, and humanity has gotten some great stuff out of patented organisms that in all likelihood would not exist if they could simply be reproduced.
What happens when a genetically-modified crop is so widely grown that it has spread its destructive, patented genes to all other nearby "non-GMO" crops? Does that mean that I need to avoid all products containing even a trace amount of that crop, because either I can't trust it to be non-GMO or even know for sure that there's a 99% chance that all of that crop IS GMO? Take corn for example... good luck finding even an ear of corn that hasn't been genetically borked, let alone a bottle of whiskey or cornbread or ever tortilla chips! Oh, does your loaf of bread or your ketchup or fruit punch have high-fructose corn syrup? Better put that down--it's contaminated. In this case, those people living in countries other than the U.S. at least have lower GMO usage by farmers overall. Of course, I don't live in one of those countries.
Soy is another one--I don't eat soy personally (at least not by choice...), but I swear you can hardly find anything in stores that doesn't have that damn thing listed as an ingredient. And, of course, the good ol' government doesn't think it's in our best interests to know that a food product on the shelves contains GMO ingredients, so it's usually not exactly easy to figure out. But by just eliminating anything that contain the big two--corn and soy based products--you'll end up with the problem of being unable to buy anything to eat. So much for choice.
Re:Natural vs artificial (Score:5, Interesting)
Please, take a moment to think.
Shall we grant ownership of asteroids, planets and other celestial objects to the astronomer who discovers them?
If not, why should other natural objects be treated differently?
If you are talking about patentig a sequencing method or a method to change a natural gene, then, by all means, grant a patent. Otherwise, forget it.
And then we have to deal with unintended consequences... What if the changed gene has deadly side-effects?
The corporations want the government to assure them their profits, but they don't want to take the risk [snopes.com].
Maybe we should not grant genetic patents at all?
Re:Natural vs artificial (Score:3, Interesting)
The worst thing that can happen to crops is that they become easier to farm. To date, the biggest legal case involving the spread of genes was a case where a farmer was re-selling herbicide-resistant seeds patented by Monsanto; pollen from a neighbouring field had spread over to his. But it's not like this affects you, the grocery-buyerâ"if Monsanto had contract terms saying they can sue their customers' customers, no one would do business with them!
Of course, this affects me, the grocery buyer. The increased monopolization and mono-culture of agriculture created by companies like Monsanto does affect me. A great many of the foods I buy are from a limited number of lines which gives companies like Monsanto power over my food choices as they actively work to suppress the growth of other lines. All in the name of profit.
Monsanto doesn't have to have a specific clause saying they can sue their customers' customers. The fact that they have a patent on one particular gene means they can sue anyone who uses that gene without their permission. Which means they can sue their customers' customers for patent enfringement and they have. Over and over again. Suing smaller farmers who can't afford to defend themselves allows Monsanto to put competitors out of business and allows the to get a larger market share of the famland by confiscation of farmland which belongs to people who "infringed their patent."
This affects me by limiting my choices of food products and by creating a powerful monopoly over food which allows them to influence future production and restrict the actions of others. It also creates a very real danger because creating a single monoculture of a certain crop opens up the danger to future diseases for which we don't have a resistance. Monsanto is directly impacting agricultural biodiversity in the name of profit.
I do not have a problem with GMO foods. I have a problem with companies getting a monopoly and then using that monopoly to beat down other producers.