Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Biotech Your Rights Online

SARS Researcher Files Preemptive Patent Application 291

Posted by timothy from the my-bug dept.
ocean-navigator writes " CP Press is reporting that the B.C. Cancer institute has filed a defensive patent application to ensure the information remains in the public domain. The lead scientist asked specifically for his name to NOT be on the application, as he feels that he made a discovery, not an invention. Nice to see a few people with principles, in my own backyard too!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SARS Researcher Files Preemptive Patent Application More

SARS Researcher Files Preemptive Patent Application

Comments Filter:

  • A few Questions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by littlerubberfeet ( 453565 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @05:46AM (#5889416)
    Is there a nonprofit set up to do this sort of thing?

    Would the eff or ACLU be willing to do this?

    What other patents have been filed with the same effect?

  • A question that has to be asked... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SerpentMage ( 13390 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @05:50AM (#5889431)
    It seems to me that politics and the likes has lost perspective.

    Is there not a problem in society when somebody is patenting a gene to keep in the free market? I am glad that they are doing it, but I see a bigger problem.

    Are politicians that DAFT to see what is going wrong?

    It seems to me that politicians are making simple stuff complex. The more and more I see this stuff I really wonder if Western civilization is collapsing. Somebody said this once to me on flight to Boston in 2002. They said 9/11 was the high water mark in Western Civilization. Like the Roman empire that eventually disappeared so too will the Western society....
    • Right on.
      You know your civilization is in an unstable equilibrium when: rich people can buy laws that help them get richer, which allow them to buy more laws...
      • That's been happening ever since the railroad tycoons of the 1800s. Since then, unions took the first steps in splitting wealth more evenly. Teddy Rooseveldt made progress, and FDR's "New Deal" directly targetted the poor segments of America.

        The way I see it, society has tended to improve, not decay.
      • Civilisation? No, not at all - your piece of
        the planet being off-balance doesn't tell us all
        that much about the beleance of the civilisation.
        It will probbaly just cause yor particular corner
        to have several quite bad bouts of stagnation.

        As the world-wide reaction is increasingly
        negative to such biopatents the result will
        be:

        * they will only be present in US, with
        consumers in US paying ridiculously higher
        prices and the creation of a
        prescriptiondrug smuggling networks

        * the phar

    • Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dashmon ( 669814 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:05AM (#5889473)
      It seems to me that politics and the likes has lost perspective. Is there not a problem in society when somebody is patenting a gene to keep in the free market? I am glad that they are doing it, but I see a bigger problem. Lost perspective? Perhaps. But things like these are the perfectly rational consequence of creating a society in which everything's about producing, selling, and buying. If you believe in a society like that, it *is* only normal that you can patent genes, for example. Politics the last two decades or so hast willingly steared to a society like this - with the consent of the largest part of the world's population, so IMHO this is not a question of having lost perspective in politics, but simply of politics based on wrong principles.
      • Are the principles that wrong? Or have we just lost common sense?

        The law seems to get shoved around to suit specific peoples needs. Typically those of larger corporations and entities.

        For example here in Germany everybody knows reforms are necessary, but nobody wants to have the reform affect them.

        In a recent business there was a book that sometimes democracy is not the best thing. What is important at the end of day is not democracy, but personal freedom. If anyone is interested I can hunt the book
      • But things like these are the perfectly rational consequence of creating a society in which everything's about producing, selling, and buying.

        OMG! A genuine, bonafide socialist! It's been so long since I've seen one of you in the wild, I was starting to think you all had gone extinct.

        Anyhow, one of the neat (super-neat) things about Regulated Capitalism is that problems like this can be fixed without breaking the system. Just a little patent reform and bingo, our "producing, selling, and buying" socie
        • OMG! A genuine, bonafide socialist! It's been so long since I've seen one of you in the wild, I was starting to think you all had gone extinct.

          I actually sometimes think we are extinct in what must be your natural habitat, the USA...

          On topic:

          You deny that liberal-democratic society is based entirely on economics and the market? That'd be interesting, because I've heared defenders of it's ideas say that that is in fact the case. You can be in favor for it, or you can oppose it, but I think there's litt

        • Reform (Score:2, Insightful)

          by fsharp ( 617264 )
          Okay, so it appears that regardless of which side of the political-economic fence you sit on, reform is on the thoughts of more than a few people posting today.

          My two cents, and forgive me for not reading through all the posts. It seems that the general theme of those asking for reform is that the 'structures/systems/agencies/policies' need to reform themselves, "the fault is our slightly-malfunctioning government, which needs reform itself.".

          I argue that there is no ediface called the government, the

    • I sometimes feel the same way. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by goldcd ( 587052 ) * on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:21AM (#5889506) Homepage
      The problem I believe is as our civilisation and society grow as a whole, each individuals sphere of knowledge and influence shrinks. We're knowing more and more about less and less and having to rely on communication and interaction to maintain the overall expansion of knowledge. I think we've now reached a state where as individuals the majority of us would be incapable of functioning/surviving alone.
      I rely on other people to provide me with food and shelter - but then my providers rely on my area of knowledge, IT - my supermarket relies on logistics. Even within my own field I'd be screwed by myself. I vaguely know how my PC works - couldn't build one myself though. Not even the keyboard. Not even the plastic it's made from. Or the ink of the keys. Or the copper in the wires
      My basic point is that the Roman empire collapsed due to over expansion in a purely geographical sense leading to communication breakdown. Western civilisation won't fall due to the geographical problem - but maybe there's a critical mass where the sheer complexity of interaction needed for day to day function will be so large it becomes unstable (or too easily destabilised).
    • 1. Patents aren't yet world-wide, but SARS apparently is already so. If the DNA sequence is out in the open, why should a researcher in China, say, respect the patent in the US and pay royalties? In other words, how is this a windfall?

      2. From the article:
      a. Abraham said the initial plan is to ensure 50 per cent of any money goes to the research facility and the remaining 50 per cent to the scientists.

      b. "Patenting per se is not a bad thing," he said. "One proper reason for patenting is to make sure it's f
    • Are politicians that DAFT to see what is going wrong?

      I believe this is known as a rhetorical question ... ??

      Seriously though, although the answer is defintely yes, I think it is difficult to expect the politicians themselves to be deeply knowledgeable about this subject. Most of the IT/IP laws associated with the internet that have been passed in the last few years provide more than enough evidence that the people who make the decisions blatantly don't understand the situation. I think a lot of the blame
      • I'm not sure how American politics works, but in Australia, politicians move portfolios all the time, and there is no way any of them can become an expert in their area in just a few months.

        Canada operates under a similar system. The Prime Minister selects from Members of Parliament individuals to serve as Ministers with various portfolios (Finance, Health, Defense, Agriculture, etc.) It is these Ministers who have to answer questions in the House of Commons and take the heat from the press. In most gov

    • Is there not a problem in society when somebody is patenting a gene to keep in the free market?

      You mean like copyrighting and licensing software in order to make it Free Software? :)

      • You mean like copyrighting and licensing software in order to make it Free Software? :)

        Well, if we didn't do that, then someone could use our software in a commercial product, basically selling our own code back to us. This is what started the movement in the first place.

  • Yay, go information (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @05:56AM (#5889447)
    It's nice to see research regarding a disease that "KILLS HUMANS WELL" put in the public domain, research that should be in the world's best interest to be public domain, and not nessicarly the IP property of specific companies. If only the same logic was applied to AIDS back in the 80's.

    I'm all for people making a profit from research, but it becomes immoral to put the bottom line above human life in order to profit.

  • All those Chinese Infringers--Call WIPO! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @05:56AM (#5889448)
    This would mean that anyone who gets SARS is obviously a dirty rotten patent infringer, as they are making, using and (well, hopefully not selling) the "invention."

    Someone should call WIPO and get the Chinese government to enforce patent rights and stop this blatant piracy of our technology.

    And everyone should deeply respect the plethora of enforceable patent rights attached to a $75 U.S. provisional patent application.

  • But we'll take the money anyway! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Malfourmed ( 633699 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @05:57AM (#5889450) Homepage
    Marra and Abraham said the discovery could end up being a financial windfall.

    Abraham said the initial plan is to ensure 50 per cent of any money goes to the research facility and the remaining 50 per cent to the scientists.

    "We think it's a discovery not an invention, but we'll take the money anyway (and put it to excellent use)." :)

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. Nice to see behaviour that's both principled and commercially astute.

  • Nice thought (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BillsPetMonkey ( 654200 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @05:57AM (#5889452)
    It won't stop drug companies oligopolizing any cure "in the interests of preventing cheap low quality substitutes".

    • DING DING DING! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You said today's secret word!

      Everybody scream real loud!

      Oligopolizing! AHHHHHHHHHHH!
    • To the medical corporations, you are not a person - you are a carecard number, a medical pill, and a prescription for a bottle of pills.

      The only way one might be able to change this would be to infect large amounts of those in charge of the major pharaceuticals (sp?) with some type of slow acting virus... patent and withhold the cure (or charge an amount equivilent to a life-earnings for a medical exec).

      I wonder what happens when one of the bigwigs gets a nasty incurable disease and says "geeze, if we h
  • SARS was open source anyway ...

    • Re:And i thought ... (Score:5, Funny)

      by imadork ( 226897 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @07:32AM (#5889754) Homepage
      Not only is it Open Source, but it's distributed under the "viral" GNU license....
      • As much as your post is meant to be a joke, I still disagree. A while ago, somebody said this:

        "The GPL has vaccine-like properties. Virii have the connotation of being malicious. The GPL ensures that software, once freed, stays free. And like a vaccine, you can't get it accidentally- you have to deliberately ingest it (i.e., link it into your own code). A virus is something you might get whether you like it or not.

        Try linking to some Microsoft code and then check the licensing health of your application.

  • Key sentence. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Matrix2110 ( 190829 ) * on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @05:58AM (#5889455) Journal
    "...to ensure the information remains public and is not hoarded by someone seeking to profit from it."

    Lets hear it for open source in other areas besides software.

    Do you realise how many lives may be saved because of this?

    This is what the information age is all about.

    Sunshine vs. Microsoft.

    Which would you choose today?

  • Cancer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:03AM (#5889466) Homepage
    It isn't stated, but I strongly suspect this is a reaction to the fight over the patenting of a breast cancer gene -- the BC Cancer Agency was forced to stop testing women for that gene by the American company which patented it.

    If the agency hadn't run into the patent minefield over the breast cancer issue, I doubt anyone would have even considered filing for a patent on the genetic sequence of SARS.

  • How much? (Score:4, Funny)

    by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:06AM (#5889477)
    So, I can buy the B.C. Cancer institute for how much? Rest assured, any cure found under the illusion the patent was to remain 'free' will cost only $9.000 per pill to license once I own the patent. Muhahahahahaa!

  • Jonas Salk did the same thing.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by VValdo ( 10446 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:07AM (#5889479)


    'Who owns my polio vaccine? The people! Could you patent the sun?

    --Jonas Salk [quotemeonit.com]

    From this biography [humanistsofutah.org]:

    In the 1950's, summertime was a time of fear and anxiety for many parents; this was the season when children by the thousands became infected with the crippling disease poliomyelitis. This burden of fear was lifted forever when it was announced that Dr. Jonas Salk had developed a vaccine against the disease. Salk became world-famous overnight, but his discovery was the result of many years of painstaking research. Salk was hailed as a miracle worker. He further endeared himself to the public by refusing to patent the vaccine. He had no desire to profit personally from the discovery, but merely wished to see the vaccine disseminated as widely as possible. In countries where Salk's vaccine has remained in use, the disease has been virtually eradicated.

    Salk could have made a bundle on the polio cure. But he knew that saving millions of lives and eradicating a disease for generations...well, that's something worth more than mere money.

    W

  • The research trend has hardly been 'open' (Score:5, Informative)

    by GraWil ( 571101 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:23AM (#5889513)
    As a UBC graduate (the campus where much of the BC Cancer Research is undertaken) I am rather skeptical of this patent application. Following the lead of a number of US universities [cnn.com], the head of UBC, Martha Piper, has a lengthy history [uilo.ubc.ca] of endorsing the industrialization of research with patents. I wonder if UBC has any plans to try and license this viral genome to drug manufacturers using this sequence to develop anti-viral agents and/or vaccines? It is sad when brilliant laywers become as important as brialliant researchers.

  • hold up. (Score:4, Informative)

    by the_Bionic_lemming ( 446569 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:24AM (#5889515)
    The article states that "50% of the money would go to the research institute and 50% would go to the scientists".

    How is this any different than another research institute getting the money off of the patent? Is it because the scientists involved will be getting a *huge* windfall off of SARS? I would of been more impressed had the money gone to help the victims, or for a full bankroll of ALL clinincs researching SARS. IMHO this patent does nothing but insure that the guy who cracked the genetic code gets rich - and I bet other agencies will not research SARS as agressively because of this patent.

    • Re:hold up. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mt2mb4me ( 550507 )
      It's not that they want to make money off of it, they want to make it so anyone can have access to this information. That last statement you made is a bit silly. Think about it, first of all they patented the genietic code, not the solution to the problem. If anything, this is going to get the competition up even higher, everybody can start at the same spot... Ok, here is the genetic code we have to neutralize, who ever gets it first gets the gold. go get'em... What this does is level the playing fiel
  • I disagree with this guy's actions. Someone filing a SARS gene patent for monopolistic reasons would spur HUGE public outrage and inspire patent reform. It would be on the cover of every newspaper and news magazine in the world, and the US Patent System would get a much needed overhaul. What this guy did was relegate it to a back page story. "Oh, he patented SARS for all of us. That's nice."

    Now, I am not forgetting that human lives are involved. But I think in this situation, a patent would be ign

  • I'm no expert... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:26AM (#5889525)
    But this is beyond a joke. Patenting a naturally occuring virus???? I'm sorry, but the fact someone has to file a defensive patent is ridiculous. Have patent laws gotten so god damn awful that we have this total nonsense?

    Yes, I am aware some companies have patented genes of the human body that are naturaly occuring. I regard that just as absurd and even dangerous. No one has the right to lock away from others stuff liek that. for no reason and no motive is that justified. for no reason and no motive is the patenting of naturally occuring substances right. You are not inventing after all. However, process to do with those genes or substances that require human intervention (say.. a vaccine), yeah well there is a case there. This is a sad indictment on human society if we truly believe we can claim to something naturally occuring in a patent. Prior Art after exists.

  • Wrong approach (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:30AM (#5889535) Homepage
    While the net effect of this patent application might be a good thing for the world with respect to SARS, it kindof sets a bad precedent, namely by showing that something that someone feels SHOULDN'T be patentable IS, in fact, patentable.

    It'd be better if they could just register the discovery and classify it as a non-patentable discovery. Not everyone who files a patent is going to be as generous as this doctor, and now every greedy SOB out there has a precedent to file a patent that shouldn't be approved.

  • Pharmaceutical Companies...that evil? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by efatapo ( 567889 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:41AM (#5889561)
    So far all I'm reading is how evil pharmaceutical companies are, that they want to profit from their inventions and keep progressing as a company. Why is software sold? Why is music sold? Because it took someone long and hard hours to create what you're enjoying. And for that, they should be compensated. That compensation should reflect the cost of creation.

    For a musician that would include musical instruments, recording technicians, etc. For a software developer that would include computers, training, beta testing. For a pharmaceutical company that requires a LOT more. First you need to identify the etiological agent, the cause of the disease, and then you need to identify the biochemical effect on the body. Then you need to identify a potential synthesizeable chemical to change the effect. You are already talking YEARS and you're nowhere near selling the product, this is all expense and no promise of reward because at any time you could find a flaw and the whole project goes belly up. Once you have narrowed your potential therapeutic you can apply to test it in humans. Pending approval there are three phases of 6 months to 1 year clinical trials. And remember, you haven't made $1 yet.

    So you've put years and millions or even billions of dollars into the development of this drug and people are whining about drug companies recouping this money and turning a profit in order to develop the next drug that will keep them on this planet for another couple years.
    • I'm glad to see that someone else here understands this, too.

      Every time the pharma patents come up on /., morons screaming bloody murder about how the eeeevil pharma corps are "killing poor AIDS patients" in Africa come out of woodwork.

      Developing drugs is an extremely expensive business and as much as you'd like to believe in human goodness, medicine has never been done, is not done and will not be done in charity.

      The brutal truth is: no profit, no research, no new drugs and much, much more dead peopl

      • Just using an example based on my experience working with devices that can have millions of dollars R&D and yet still be sold for pennies

        Look at the ICs on any circuit board. Chances are good some of the most expensive parts are sold for about $5 to $10 a piece, the cheapest would run for about a penny per 2 to 8 parts on one die. To produce those parts requires a fabrication plant, which could range from millions for something fairly low end all the way to billions for state of the art--I'm includin
      • Developing drugs is an extremely expensive business and as much as you'd like to believe in human goodness, medicine has never been done, is not done and will not be done in charity.

        You mean marketing drugs is expensive. Pharmaceuticals spend two to three times as much on marketing as on research.

        And as much as you'd like to believe that everyone is solely profit-driven, medicine has frequently been done, is being done, and will continue to be done in charity. Sorry, but isn't that easy to whitewash th
    • Agreed. It seems like a silly, vicious cycle: Massive testing requirements (which make sense considering the potential for harm from a cure with unforeseen side effects) costs HUGE bucks. To recoup that, pharm companies need to sell the cures they find. Governments keep piling on new requirements, costs more to create new drugs, and the cycle continues.

      I do, however, think patents are unfortunate. However, they are of limited duration and as long as they don't get too greedy....

    • Re:Pharmaceutical Companies...that evil? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by clonebarkins ( 470547 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @07:48AM (#5889843)
      You are already talking YEARS and you're nowhere near selling the product, this is all expense and no promise of reward because at any time you could find a flaw and the whole project goes belly up.

      You forgot to mention that many of these expenses are paid for by millions of taxpayer dollars. Why should a pharmaceutical company be the sole financial beneficiary of tax-funded research? Just because they did the research means nothing because they would not have been able to do it in the first place without government grants.

      Additionally, there's the moral aspect of it. Musicians buy instruments, etc., blah, blah, blah -- but the musician's "product" isn't something that could save the lives of millions of people (philosophical arguments about music aside). Pharmaceutical companies make exactly that type of product--i.e., drugs that can save lives. This kind of information should be shared with the public, not hidden away and legally trapped so that the bottom line stays favorable for a handful of pharmaceutical executives.

    • Not in this case, bozo (Score:5, Informative)

      by Akardam ( 186995 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @08:58AM (#5890472)
      If you had read the article, you would see that the issue at hand is patenting the actual genetic code of the virus. They're not talking about patenting a drug to cure it. The reason people have such a dislike for the drug companies is that they try and patent viruses, and animal genomes. Most people in their right minds can't figure out how the companies can claim patents (whether royalty free or not) to something that they didn't invent! Nature invented the virus, not some guy in a lab (unless this is a whole biological attach, but that I doubt). They're doing it all backwards -- getting a blueprint from the finished product, as opposed to making blueprints to a new product.

      Let the drug companies recoup their costs for inventing usefull drugs to cure disease, etc. But patenting virus genomes is nothing more than a money grab, even if it's ostensibly "to keep the information in the public domain".

      • Not in this case, bozo (Score:2) by Akardam (186995) on Tuesday May 06, @09:58AM (#5890472) If you had read the article, you would see that the issue at hand is patenting the actual genetic code of the virus. They're not talking about patenting a drug to cure it.

        This is easy enough to fix. Find the guy who patented Anthrax and submit a whole bunch of prior art.

    • ...[wah! wah! research costs pharmcos billions]...

      This tired old line of reasoning is worth very little once you understand that pharmcos spend twice as much on marketing as they do on research.

  • Complete BS! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:50AM (#5889593)
    filed a defensive patent application to ensure the information remains in the public domain.

    There is no need for a "defensive patent" to keep something in the public domain. Patents must be useful, new & innovative and non-obvious. As soon as something is made public, it becomes non-patentable.

    They might claim it's to keep things in the public domain, but there is no need to do so. I suspect it's just PR while they hope to make money from their "public domain" patents.

    There's nothing wrong with patents to make money, cut out the PR crap.

    • Re:Complete BS! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wct ( 45593 )

      There is no need for a "defensive patent" to keep something in the public domain. Patents must be useful, new & innovative and non-obvious. As soon as something is made public, it becomes non-patentable.

      A defensive patent like this stops an unscrupulous company from filing future patents built upon this discovery. If this knowledge was just made available in the public domain, then a small variation/incremental improvement could legally be patented. Right now, this can't be done without licensing t

      • A defensive patent like this stops an unscrupulous company from filing future patents built upon this discovery. If this knowledge was just made available in the public domain, then a small variation/incremental improvement could legally be patented. Right now, this can't be done without licensing the information from the current patent holder, which seems unlikely given their political stance.

        Just out of curiosity, what happens if the patent is rejected? Would then "small variation/incremental improve

        • Seems to me like rejecting this patent would be the best thing -- then the information would stay in the public domain, and a good precedent would be set for not allowing viruses to be patented.

          I think you're right, but I gather that the USPTO has been setting precedent after precedent of the opposite, which is why this kind of "defensive" patenting is going on at all.

  • Read the fine print... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JTFritz ( 15573 ) * <jeffreytfritz@gm ... com minus author> on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @06:57AM (#5889611) Homepage Journal
    A firm in Hong Kong is seeking the patent to the entire SARS virus.

    Okay... I can (barely) understand patenting genetic code. Of which, I like to think that I have the exclusive rights to using my own genetic code. If RMS is reading this, he'd probably suggest that the human genome should be licensed under the GPL.

    But how can an organization be granted a patent on an organism? I mean, at what point are people going to file for a patent on the Zebra?

  • What's preemptive about this application? Any patent application is preemptive and tends to stifle research of others. If I read the article correctly, the patent holder doesn't even consider royalty-free licensing. So what's the big deal? Just another patent in the pharmaceutical sector which could ensure that developing countries won't have access to affordable SARS medicine in the future, should it become a widespread disease.
    • This patent is meant to make sure the ideas remain in the public domain, and was only applied for so some money-grubbing pharmaceutical company doesn't do it and then turn around and demand money for the implementation of the ideas.

      Patents alone don't stifle innovation. They simply make sure nobody else is allowed to take credit for things. In this case, that's a GOOD thing, because since he's indicated that he WANTS people to use the information in this patent, there's no chance of someone "violating" i
      • This patent is meant to make sure the ideas remain in the public domain,

        A patented idea is no longer in the public domain. Once patented, some party has a limited-time monopoly to comercially expoloit the idea.

        and was only applied for so some money-grubbing pharmaceutical company doesn't do it and then turn around and demand money for the implementation of the ideas.

        How can you infer this from the article? In the present case, the patent holding company seems to be quite intersted in the money-grabb

        • A patented idea is no longer in the public domain. Once patented, some party has a limited-time monopoly to comercially expoloit the idea.

          Correct, if you choose to exert your limited (thans to the RIAA MPAA now nearly un-limited) monopoly. Or, you can choose not to enforce it and allow everybody access to the information / method for free forever.

          Owning a patnet doesn't make it so nobody else can do / use something... it jsut means you have the right to sue if the steal your idea IF you choose to s

  • Who owns a virus? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by clonebarkins ( 470547 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @07:35AM (#5889763)
    FTA:
    A Canadian patent lawyer said it could take at least a year before any legal decision is made on who has the rights to the SARS virus.

    Perhaps the answer is -- ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INFECTED!

    Seriously, you can't have rights to a virus. Besides the fact that 1) it's already been created (prior art) and 2) viruses don't care about laws and such. I mean, seriously, what would you do if you owned the rights to a virus -- sue everyone who got sick from it?

    "Yes, your honor, he caught my virus. I'm asking for both punitive and compensatory damages due to his *cough* alleged *cough* illness."

  • Public ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tmark ( 230091 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @07:44AM (#5889825)
    to ensure the information remains in the public domain

    IANAL, but this is not how I read the article. Specifically, a representative of the BC cancer agency (the party applying for the patent) talks about generating royalties and revenues, and even about how the revenues are going to be allocated. How can they generate revenues if the information is "in the public domain" ?

    All they really talk about is making sure no one group monopolizes access to the information. But maybe that's just good press, and far from a substantive pledge. Who knows what it will mean if they are granted the patent. In any case, it seems clear they're ready and willing to reap royalties and licensing fees.

  • Retribution (Score:3, Funny)

    by dalran ( 101106 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @08:06AM (#5889968)
    Hmm, if I get a patent for something like ie the DNA sequence of the SARS virus should I not also be accountable for it's use? In this case shouldn't victims be able to sue the patent holder for damages??

    Note that the linked article mentions a firm in Hong Kong that is seeking to patent the entire SARS virus.

    Btw... how are mutations handled? Are they to be considered derived works??

  • Flawed Logic? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mdielmann ( 514750 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @08:41AM (#5890281) Homepage Journal
    Wouldn't any other patents be invalid under prior art? After all, they announced it to the whole world. How could anyone possibly say they discovered it first when you could open a newspaper and see their earlier discovery announcement there?

  • Oh! So your the creator of SARS... (Score:3, Funny)

    by pestihl ( 16433 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @08:52AM (#5890404) Homepage Journal

    Seems to me those who hold the patents should pick up the tab for the mess.

  • dubious (Score:4, Insightful)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @09:15AM (#5890659)
    You don't have to patent something to keep it "accessible", you can simply disclose it.

    It seems to come down to that the institute is patenting the sequence, they do want to make money from it, they are just trying to put a positive spin on it. And the researcher, while opposed to it, is pretty much powerless to do anything about it and just tries to keep his name off the application.

    Altogether, this is not a good sign.

  • I hope the research into SARS is going to lead to a cure to both SARS and the common cold.
    Drug companies make a lot of money from diseases and have no interest in finding a cure because the treatments they create take forever and therefore they are more profitable.
  • A firm in Hong Kong is seeking the patent to the entire SARS virus.

    The "typhoid mary" should have he right to patent SARS. While SARS is thought of as natrual what if it was a production via this persons body??

    Maybe the first person to get SARS natrualy produce's it as a(symptom?) of there stage in life, like peoples odor. Are such things patentable?? (well odors, smell's and fragrances are not. As it has been said, Its a discovery treat it as one.)

    Crackers`n`Soup
  • Does anyone else find it insane that a patent would even be *allowed* on a *naturally occurring* genetic sequence? (Let alone that a preemptive patent would have to be filed to prevent hoarding of a naturally-occuring information sequence? Isn't this sorta like hoarding a phone book??)

    Isn't the idea of the patent to protect something you *invented*?? (What, now someone's going to claim to have invented the SARS virus? Oooh, the lawsuits one could make from that...)

  • What if someone wanted to make a billion dollars?

    The idea isn't too far fetched so far, people like to be rich, right?

    What if you engineered a virus? Its non-trivial to do, but with the right equipment, you can do it for practically free.

    What if you engineered a cure for the virus?
    What if you patented it?

    Now in order to make money, all you need to do is spread the virus around.

    Hooray! Money is the #1 factor in who wins wars.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Plastic gun. Ingenious. More coffee, please." -- The Phantom comics

Close