![Patents Patents](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/patents_64.png)
![Biotech Biotech](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/biotech_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
SARS Researcher Files Preemptive Patent Application 291
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!"
A few Questions (Score:5, Interesting)
Would the eff or ACLU be willing to do this?
What other patents have been filed with the same effect?
Re:A few Questions (Score:5, Interesting)
A question that has to be asked... (Score:5, Insightful)
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....
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:3, Offtopic)
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...
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2, Informative)
The way I see it, society has tended to improve, not decay.
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2)
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
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2)
For example health care. I have a friend that cannot get his knee insured because he had a soccer accident in university. This is not right. Ok I am not a fan of health care that supports everything. But the essentials are not debatable. It is human dignity.
It is sad that the world has ended up like this...
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why a socialised medicine system (like the UK or Canada has) whereby society takes upon itself the burden of making sure that "nobody is left behind" is the only reasonable solution.
Well, the only reasonable solution that doesn't leave poor people to rot in the streets.
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't personally agree with medical insurance the way it is done in the US. I think it's a very broken system. People treat it as a sort of socialized system, every medical expense goes through the insurance system.
I envision a system of medical insurance much more like car insurance. If you get sick and have minor costs, you just pay them! I know it sounds radical to suggest paying for a service you use
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:3, Insightful)
* Contracts are always under durress. No surgery = you die is not different than give me your wallet or i shoot.
* % of $ spent on fancy buildings vs patient care
* right to live (not the same as right to life/pro abortion) - all people deserve to have their most basic right secured and not be killed or tortured due to lack of cash. Medical pros won't admit this happens, but it does. Example - i had to pa
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are of course two sides of the fence.
Pro -- All persons have the right to "life, liberty, and persuit of happiness." Included in "life" is the right to receive the best medical care available. A millionare is not more deserving of quality healthcare than a school teacher.
Con -- A system wherein state-of-the-art healthcare is provided at tax-payer expense rather than at personal expence is inherently inefficient. Hypocondriacs and others will take advantage of the system, constantly seeking medical care for irrelevant or non-existant problems, clogging the system and draining its funds.
Now I'll admit out front that I'm all for socialized health care. I'll also throw out in the open that I'm a childhood cancer survivor (and if I receive spam for hair growth products I'll hunt you down like the dog you are). I have seen too many children die because their families could not raise the money for a bone marrow transplant. I have seen children subjected to horrificly painfull procedures without anesthetic because private health insurance wouldn't pick it up. I have seen kids go without necessary tests and the diagnoses that would come from those tests for MONTHS because of financial pressure from HMOs to cut down on so called "non-essential procedures"
I know it's hard to show pity and mercy to those you've never met. But to those of you opposed to this I want you to ask yourself. What is the CASH VALUE of a child's life? How much money is it worth, to you personaly, to raise the survival rate on childhood cancer 10%? 20%? 30%?
Early diagnosis is THE KEY to curing nearly every single affliction that strikes the average american below the age of 75. Early diagnosis and preventitive care can halt simptoms of even the most horrific and uncurable diseases giving a patient decades of productive, happy, and (fairly) healthy, life. What are those decades worth? What is the cash value of a child having a father? A mother?
It is not uncommon in some european countries to pay 80%+ of your income in taxes. 80%!!! That's huge! On the other hand the government picks up transportation costs (for the most part), housing for anyone who can't afford it, food, healthcare, and thousands of other related expenses. There is little or nothing left to pay FOR.
I'm not advocating a system that radical. But there are some issues in this country that need to be looked at. We somehow belive that taxes are a black hole into which we throw money and get nothing back. $300+ a month is $3600 a year without co-pays etc for health insurance for ONE PERSON. A federal system could easily cut that cost in half, provide superior care, superior coverage, and still have money left over to fund research in new directions.
Sure, if you're making $500,000 a year the tax hike to pay for a system like this would suck for you. Would it hurt so much to do some good though?
Final point -- What it really comes down to is this. We've allready got this system in place. It's called private health care. The problem with this system is several fold however.
1 - It's out to make a buck, a socilized system just has to break even.
2 - It excludes the poor, who are the ones most in need of preventive care, and whos medical expenses drive up the cost for everyone else because they lack that care.
3 - It still doesn't cover you if something goes horribly wrong. The chances of this are pretty slim, but it all goes back to problem 1.
Step out of the political dogma we've all been fed. What would a system with 100% coverage for 100% of the population be worth to you? $100 a year? $200? How much would you pay? How about $3600 a year? That's about what you're paying for worse coverage now, and it's not like it's not a tax. Sure it's not levied by the government, but how much of a choice do you really have? Sure, you can opt out, but then when something goes wrong you're screwed. Natural selection will take care of the opt outs. It's doing a great job so far.
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2, Insightful)
1.) European governments don't cover transportation -- at very least not completely. A monthly bus ticket in Aachen, Germany costs about 40 Euros. A monthly bus ticket in Austin, TX costs about 25 dollars.
2.) 80% is maybe a maximum (I don't know), but the amount of my money that is going away in taxes is about 50%. I'm an above-average earner in Germany.
3.) There's plenty left to pay for after the govm't has taken it's share. The average German famil
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2)
My reference to transport was largely in reference to Euro-Rail, which is (IIRC, it's been years since I've spent appreciable time in Europe) heavily subsidised.
Certainly I agree beaurocracy is a problem with a system like this. The US Medicare system is a perfect example of such beaurocracy.
What it comes down to is this. I think the US has it wrong. I think Germany probably has it wrong as well (certainly your experiances don't sound like
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2)
* Ensures that I'm not killed because I don't have enough cash for treatment.
* Prevents people from falling to the bottom of maslow's needs heirarchy when they have a complicated delivery of a baby or fall and break their legs because they don't have the cash or coverage.
* Prevents the use of durress as a negotiation method by doctors and care providers.
I think in the US our system is better
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever gotten sick and found that people came around bringing food as soon as they heard?If you haven't, then you need to get better friends. And bring food to them when they can't walk.
Freedom is a two way street, it is true, and one that is not walked alone.
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2)
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2)
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2)
In contrast the more socialist governments of Europe are geared towards a stable population, and the 'communist' government of China tends itself to a highly populated country.
Each system fists with the population of the region, Europe couldn't deal with the population growth rates that the US has, and China is/was trying to reduce it's population.
In 10-15 years time the US will start to become ove
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:5, Insightful)
An idea is not property, property implies the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing. An idea is useless if you don't tell anyone about it, therefore ideas can't be property without the various patent, trademark, and copyright laws, which confer an artificial ownership to an idea.
Monopolies in itself are not anti-free market
A free market is based on the fundamental principles of mutual consent. There is not mutual consent when you are forced to buy something from a monopoly. There is no informed choice being made when there is no choice at all. Monopolies are one of the great potential failings of the free market, Marx was right enough about that. As a result, we need to be extremely careful when deliberately creating artificial monopolies.
You can think of a few professions that do nothing but "sell" ideas - IT consultants
A consultant usually sells a service, not a product. I doubt many consultants would be put out of business if all IP laws were repealed.
Perhaps the fact that we've limited the free market this way insured that Marx's economic predictions didn't become a reality
Indeed. As a Libertarian, I often disagree with other Libertarians about monopolies and the free market. Some hard line Libertarians do argue things similar to what you were saying.
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2)
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
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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).
Pah (Score:3, Funny)
Re:i'm not sure how you can say that. (Score:2)
It is not that much fun to think about because it means we were on the wrong side. But it is a thought that needs comptemplation....
More questions... (Score:2)
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
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2)
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
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2)
You mean like copyrighting and licensing software in order to make it Free Software? :)
Re:A question that has to be asked... (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Yay, go information (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yay, go information (Score:2)
Yes, but unlike many diseases (e.g. influenza), SARS appears to be as deadly to young, healthy, economically productive workers as it is to the immu
All those Chinese Infringers--Call WIPO! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:All those Chinese Infringers--Call WIPO! (Score:2)
Actually, if I get SARS, can't I sue the organization that has patented it becuase it's their invention that is causing me harm ?
Re:All those Chinese Infringers--Call WIPO! (Score:2)
But we'll take the money anyway! (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Nice to see behaviour that's both principled and commercially astute.
Re:But we'll take the money anyway! (Score:2, Funny)
Is that an oxymoron?
Re:But we'll take the money anyway! (Score:2)
Nice thought (Score:5, Insightful)
DING DING DING! (Score:2, Funny)
Everybody scream real loud!
Oligopolizing! AHHHHHHHHHHH!
It's because (Score:2)
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
And i thought ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:And i thought ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And i thought ... (Score:2)
"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.
Re:not if it originated from the US. (Score:2, Informative)
Key sentence. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Cancer (Score:2)
Re:Cancer (Score:3, Insightful)
"It is fundamentally inconsistent with the values of Canadians that something so intrinsic to their sense of self as their genetic material can be patented and treated by legislators as just another commercial product."
How much? (Score:4, Funny)
Jonas Salk did the same thing.. (Score:5, Informative)
'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
Re:Jonas Salk did the same thing.. (Score:2)
We can praise us lucky that he wasn't one of those "American Dream" nuts. Props.
Re:Jonas Salk did the same thing.. (Score:3, Funny)
Query
Term 1: sun
In Field 1: title
Searching 1976 to present...
Results of Search in 1976 to present db for:
TTL/sun: 1271 patents.
Hits 1 through 50 out of 1271:
Re:Can't Patent The Sun, But ... (Score:2)
Oh dear [/pooh]
Re:pooh? (Score:2)
The research trend has hardly been 'open' (Score:5, Informative)
hold up. (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Mistake (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:I'm no expert... (Score:2)
Wrong approach (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Pharmaceutical Companies...that evil? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Pharmaceutical Companies...that evil? (Score:2, Informative)
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
You mean -marketing- drugs. (Score:2)
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
Re:Pharmaceutical Companies...that evil? (Score:2)
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)
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)
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".
Re:Not in this case, bozo (Score:2)
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.
Re:Pharmaceutical Companies...that evil? (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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)
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
Re:Complete BS! (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, what happens if the patent is rejected? Would then "small variation/incremental improve
Re:Complete BS! (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re:Read the fine print... (Score:3, Funny)
Damn, that's a good idea ... I'll get my lawyers on it right away....
Oh, wait...all my lawyers are jackals....
Re:Read the fine print... (Score:2)
Preemptive (Score:2)
Re:Preemptive (Score:2)
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
Re:Preemptive (Score:2)
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
Re:Preemptive (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Oh! So your the creator of SARS... (Score:3, Funny)
Seems to me those who hold the patents should pick up the tab for the mess.
dubious (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Cure for common cold (Score:2)
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.
Patent SARS (Score:2, Funny)
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
Let's patent DNA... (Score:2)
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...)
If I could bottle air (Score:2)
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.
Re:Idealist fools (Score:2, Interesting)
m$-like farmaceutic company's patent = high prices = much money = rich researchers + little more money for research = dead poor poople who can't avord the expensive cures, as is happening nowdays with 'cures' for AIDS...
Re:Idealist fools (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't know me.
Any idea why people in general consider unpaid work as unrewarding work? I bet that by the time you hit your 30s and after working yourself to death for your degree, you'll realize that it really sucks to live in a crappy apartment in a crime-infested neighbourhood, eat cheap beans every day and take your laundry to an all-night laundromat because you cannot afford any better.
Any idea in general why life without money can suck like that? Only because people are too s
Re:Principle Schminciple (Score:2)
Will this be another repeat of the AIDS scandal? Patent-protected diseases against which no researcher is allowed to vaccinate?
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't pretend to have spent any serious time looking at the SARS genome, but from what I've seen that's a very unlikely proposition. If they were trying to weaponize a virus, most likely they would most likely start with a known human-infective strain of a respiratory virus. The SARS genome seems to shows that it's from a much more distant (probably bird-related) branch of this virus family.
So we've got which jumped from a bird host to a human host - this is a relatively normal route by which this kind of disease arises. Occam's razor says there's no need to put Evil Chinese Scientists (tm) into the chain of causality.
"let them try to patent" (Score:2, Troll)
Google cache and surfers mirrors will make the rest...
"Only Wimps make backup, real men post to an ftp and let people do the mirrors" Linus T, 24h before a full crash forced him to rewrite his kernel 8p