How Intellectual Property Reinforces Inequality 272
An anonymous reader writes "Here is an article by Dr.Joe Stiglitz on how intellectual property reinforces inequality by allowing patent owners to seek rent (aka license / sue) instead of delivering goods to the society. From the article: 'At first glance, the case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, might seem like scientific arcana: the court ruled, unanimously, that human genes cannot be patented, though synthetic DNA, created in the laboratory, can be. But the real stakes were much higher, and the issues much more fundamental, than is commonly understood. The case was a battle between those who would privatize good health, making it a privilege to be enjoyed in proportion to wealth, and those who see it as a right for all — and a central component of a fair society and well-functioning economy. Even more deeply, it was about the way inequality is shaping our politics, legal institutions and the health of our population.'"
US of Awesome v the Corruptwealth of Austrafalia (Score:5, Informative)
Gene patenting: Australian court rules BRCA1 patent is legal http://theconversation.com/gene-patenting-australian-court-rules-brca1-patent-is-legal-12240 [theconversation.com]
This is nothing new. When asked to rule if Australians had free speech the Australian courts wouldn't even grant them that: http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx [findlaw.com.au] http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1741850/QA-What-are-the-limits-to-free-speech [sbs.com.au] http://www.ask.com/question/what-countries-don-t-have-freedom-of-speech [ask.com]
Well, nice to see America putting Australia to shame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implications_of_US_gene_patent_invalidation_on_Australia [wikipedia.org]
Re:Article doesn't understand the point of patents (Score:2, Informative)
This is one of the rare cases where I have to side with the patent holders (despite how uncomfortable it is). Myriad Genetics did *not* patent a gene, they patented a propensity for disease test, that featured a specific gene at the center of the test.
What did getting a patent do for them? It allowed them (or their licensees) to be the only ones legally allowed to perform propensity for disease tests as a service, using that gene. What else did it do? It allowed them to be open about their research, so that the gene and it's functionality could be better understood. What would happen if a patent were not a viable option from the onset? Myriad would have either not put the research in (fearing that their work would go unrewarded) and we would have not found this gene until much later on when casual science (at universities) came across it, or they would have done the work, and kept it all a secret in order to protect their ability to recoup the money spent on the research. Either way, we never would have found out what that gene does until some other research effort came across it, perhaps in 10 more years, or even 20 or 50.
How many other diseases will go unstudied, now that there is no reward for linking a gene to a disease? How close might we have been to spotting/treating other cancers? Does that matter at all, or is this just about "putting patent trolls in their place"?
Re:Monopolies in general (Score:5, Informative)
Because they had less expenses. That doesn't necessarily mean they made the idea any less costly than it already was, unless one considers the idea of waiting for somebody else to invent something, then taking the idea and selling it themselves without having to waste the R&D time on it an acceptable means of lowering associated costs with product development.
Recouping R&D costs (Score:5, Informative)
Disclosure: I am a certified accountant with a specialty in cost accounting.
If your competitor steals your idea and then is able to copy your idea for cheaper...doesn't that mean you just lost and SHOULD go out of business?
What it means is that you need to study cost accounting. It's quite easy to demonstrate how a company that knocks off another company's product can gain a cost advantage. Research and development costs are often a very substantial portion of the cost of a good. Copying someone else's research is usually cheaper than doing it yourself. For two similar sized competent companies there is typically little difference in manufacturing or distribution costs. Holding all other things equal it is quite impossible for the company doing the R&D to sell it cheaper than a company which can simply copy someone elses work. This is called the free rider problem [wikipedia.org] and it is the entire reason why patents exist in the first place.
They improved upon your idea, right or else how would they sell it for less?
They can sell it for less because they do not have to recoup R&D costs. Please go find a cost accountant and they will explain this to you in exquisite detail. You do not have to improve on a product at all to sell it for less if you do not have to do any engineering yourself.
Re:Article doesn't understand the point of patents (Score:5, Informative)
The vast majority of the basic research into disesases is done in univesity labs, funded by government grants. Only when the results hint at commercial viability do businesses (often the reasearchers by leaving the university) then take over and commercialize the work. I am not saying that there is not a lot of effort still left to do, but in many cases the patents are mostly comming out of the early work, and are then blocking people from doing the commercialization work.
While the drug companies might spend a lot of money to do the final commercialization work, the vast majority of the development cost (lots and lots of dead ends) is born by the government. I am not arguing that that is not how it should be (that is how science gets done), but rather saying that it is silly to think that without patent protections that new things would not be discoverd.
The case at hand the company was trying to use teh cour system to prevent anyone from creating tests that looked for naturally occuring genes. They were not just blocking people from using the test method they developed, but from using any conceviable method of teting for those specific genes.
No patents allowed for things found in nature (Score:5, Informative)
Myriad Genetics did *not* patent a gene, they patented a propensity for disease test, that featured a specific gene at the center of the test.
If what you say is true then why did the recent Supreme Court ruling invalidate [wikipedia.org] Myriad's patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2? Myriad was apparently granted patents on naturally occurring genes they had managed to isolate and they used these patents to prevent anyone else from testing for the presence of these genes. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Myriad on this topic. This does not prevent Myriad from developing some novel test technology, it simply means they can't patent something that is just found in nature the same way they cannot dig up a pile of some mineral and get a patent for what they found.
How many other diseases will go unstudied, now that there is no reward for linking a gene to a disease?
There is plenty of reward for coming up with a therapy, coming up with novel testing equipment, etc. There is no public interest to be found in allowing patents for things simply found in nature.
Re:Commies occypied /. ? (Score:4, Informative)