Human Gene Patent Challenged In Australian Court 90
dov_0 writes "Following a successful patent challenge in the US, an action is underway in Australia to have patents on two breast cancer genes declared invalid."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Human Gene Patent Challenged In Australian Court
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
To stay youthful, stay useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And of course by "get out of the way of business" we mean "prevent any other businesses from competing".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoosh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, no company could honestly claim to have created ANY part of the human genome.
Needless to say, I have no freaking idea how the patent offices could even entertain such a stupid idea, other than complete incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
Government needs to get out of the way of business. If private companies want to own human genese, I'm sure that the benefits will trickle down to us.
The stupid thing about what you're saying is that the patent system itself is Government interference. If you want the Govt to stop interfering, remove the patent system.
May be missing the point of the patent system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:May be missing the point of the patent system (Score:5, Informative)
Re:May be missing the point of the patent system (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I should patent the nerves on the penis and clitoris, and collect a fee whenever someone try to manipulate those....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I wouldn't have as big a problem with this if the USPTO just required one thing before issuing a patent: a working demonstrative prototype for every claim.
If they had actually cured cancer, I wouldn't mind so much them owning the cure for cancer (after all, in 17 years everybody gets it dirt cheap - a huge win for humanity).
The problem is that they don't have a cure for cancer, and nobody else is going to bother to target this gene for developing a cure for cancer due to the encumbrance. So, huma
Re:May be missing the point of the patent system (Score:4, Informative)
The main reason these patents were allowed was to help refund the costs of the research into these genes. By forcing researchers, drug companies, ect. to license the use of the gene, it helped the initial team of researchers/parent company recover the money they sunk into finding the gene.
The implication of this ruling is a loss of profitability via research. Whether this is actually the case or not will be determined by time.
Re:May be missing the point of the patent system (Score:4, Informative)
I doubt it. The vast majority of basic biology research was done without patenting that knowledge and trying to sell it in some way, which is sort of what Myriad Genetics was trying to do. There are grants for basic research, the point of that is to fund research which was important but not directly profitable. If someone is saying "the only way this research will get done is if I can sell the knowledge afterwards," they are lying.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll just become trade secrets. However they won't last long because the skills and tool required to figure out genes become cheaper everyday.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The main reason these patents were allowed was to help refund the costs of the research into these genes. By forcing researchers, drug companies, ect. to license the use of the gene, it helped the initial team of researchers/parent company recover the money they sunk into finding the gene.
The implication of this ruling is a loss of profitability via research. Whether this is actually the case or not will be determined by time.
Yes, but you are looking at the wrong end of the drug pipeline. The ultimate goal of said research is for actual therapies and treatments to be invented, which can then enjoy patent protection. Patenting the gene itself creates a highly restrictive environment where only those with agreements with the patent holder can even consider embarking on the (much more costly and difficult) search for a treatment.
There are researchers in the community, BTW, that are now legally barred from working on disease trea
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Playing the devils advocate: Patents exist to encourage research which, when completed, could be easily "stolen". If there were no patents, nobody would research something which a competitor could copy without doing any of the work; or everyone would obfuscate their findings if possible.*
So a company invests millions to find a gene which plays a role in cancer, i.e. it finds the connection and not just patents random junk hoping to score something later - shouldn't this be rewarded or protected somehow? If
Re: (Score:2)
Re:May be missing the point of the patent system (Score:4, Funny)
Yes. Now float off my lawn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Than those companies need to give up. places like http://www.vai.org/ [vai.org] are doing research and giving it free to the world.
Sometimes "the greater good" is better than a profit margin.
And the funny part is the best scientists are being drawn to the Institutes that allow them to do research without reporting to the board and justifying profit margins.
I have yet to find anyone that has went to college to work on genetics and cure diseases because "I'm gonna be stinking rich" they do it because they want to h
Re:May be missing the point of the patent system (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the argument that I would make (and most reasonable people who are not entirely against the whole concept of patents) is that it would be perfectly reasonable to patent the drug you developed to fight Breast Cancer based upon your discovery of this gene. Patenting the gene itself is not reasonable. I cannot patent my discovery that steam forced into a confined space can turn temperature energy into kinetic energy. I can patent the steam engine I built based on this realization. I cannot patent my discovery that these specific proteins in combination result in a Breast Cancer gene. I can patent the drug I synthesized to combat breast Cancer based on this gene's construction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose someday, we'll read in the news that patents have a great social cost than benefit [mises.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Rather than thinking of this as a problem (Score:1)
...take it as a challenge to do something else. If the patent is successful, let it serve as the "bar" to beat. It will foster healthy competition and drive innovation. In fact, replace whatever they used with amphibian DNA ... sex changing amphibian DNA. [dramatic music]
Genetic DMCA (Score:2)
only the beginning (Score:3, Insightful)
Investors Flee the Scene (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I see no problem with my tax dollars going to research, its other things they use my tax dollars for that pisses me off.
Re:Investors Flee the Scene (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Allow me to don the tinfoil hat for a moment, but if cancer research is a private field, I don't think they would strive towards finding a cure, or if they found it, I'm not sure they would publish it. There is much more money in treating repeat customers.
I'm not saying that its happening, just that I wouldn't be all too surprised if it were.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that there currently is no cure. We do not cure the cancer, we just treat it. And it works exactly like you described, they get better for a while, then they're back.
It's so "Win-win" *cough*, that I have a hard time believing that cancer research is actually doing what they are saying its doing. For all we know, they are merely researching the cancer, and not looking for a way to stop it.
But there I go with crazy conspiracies again. I like to put a little more faith in humanity than all that. Perhap
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was said tongue-in-cheek and please take the statement as such.
However, seriously, if they should find a "cure" for specific cancers... My statement holds true. People will need to be treated as they develop new cancers during their lifetime; and, their life expectancy will increase because the cancers can be resolved, like a bacterial infection is now. There will be no Holy Grail of cancer cures. We may, eventually, be able to provide "vaccines" for common cancers caused by viral infections and co
No.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Government dollars are for difficult projects that improve our lives, like trillion dollar wars, multi million dollar arms sales to future enemies we'll fight in trillion dollar wars, and so forth.
Easy things like cancer research that carry zero benefit for the population at large should be privately owned forever by unaccountable tyrannies. Not only do we spend billions of dollars on erectile dysfunction research and marketing instead of cancer, but the drug companies also get to spend two to four times more money for marketing than research [publicintegrity.org], which results in lots of awesome TV commercials.
It's a win-win!
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded. A quick google search found this page on the National Cancer Institute [cancer.gov] funding. If I'm reading that right, that's over 4 billion we spent through the NCI in 2008. We are in fact spending a lot of money on cancer to drive the preliminary research that isn't profitable. And why not, the government wastes a lot more money on far less noble goals than "curing cancer."
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that governments spend almost nothing on biomedical R&D unless there is a thriving private sector biomedical R&D community lobbying them to spend the money. Biomedical R&D spending in the US, both private (the vast majority) and government, utterly dwarfs the amount of money spent on biomedical R&D by governments (or private sector) i
Re: (Score:2)
... unless it's government backed with your tax dollars.
As opposed to being backed with private capital raised by selling me pharmaceuticals. One way or another, "we" are paying for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at their stock in the last month [google.com] and then look down at related companies on that page and see how every single company in that industry has suffered stock prices plummeting in the last month. Not saying it's a bad thing or that these patents shouldn't be overturned but it was pretty obvious [slashdot.org]. Just to prepare everyone, you will see a short term drop in research devoted to identifying cancer genes unless it's government backed with your tax dollars.
Can you think of a better use of tax dollars?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Many-if-not-most of those private non-profits are funded by government grants. Organizations like the American Cancer Society, direct donations, and similar charitable activities fund the rest, true, but without doing a LOT more research than you have there is no way to determine how much of any individual lab's budget comes from government grants vs. private charitable donations. Having worked for research institutions and having had my wife work for the American Heart Association, I can reasonably guess
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Crap. this was meant as a reply to sibling, not parent. Why can't we edit or delete our posts here again?
Re: (Score:2)
Or, they'll research anyway because they want to develop highly lucrative drugs that interact with such genes (and which can be patented).
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
This shit won't end well if people are allowed to patent genes.
The methods for finding genes? sure, medications you can make from studying genes? sure. Genes? no.
A company is more then welcomes to keep there findings as a trade secret. It's a pretty shitting thing to do in an industry founded on sharing.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
As an ex-USPTO examiner, I can say that genes are not patentable, nor were they. What is patented is exactly what you claim to be alright with: methods for looking at the genes, methods for manipulating the genes and other chemicals that do stuff to the genes.
The problem is that often there is only one method of looking at a gene, or one method of manipulating a gene. Sometimes the physics limits the methods to a single one. Patenting that method effectively patents the gene, which was the case at bar.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to keep perpetuating the stereotype that geeks can't make a worthwhile argument and tend to get upset about relatively trivial bullshit like product names.
Re: (Score:1)
Upset? Amused is more like it. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go use the GiMP in Ubuntu to create some better ads for Sprunk! Year 2010 is LINUX ON THE DEZKTOP, BABY!
Patents... (Score:4, Interesting)
Patents are a great idea, but the whole concept has been completely raped. The USPTO awards many patents that have no business being granted, and many applicants try to make their claims as broad as possible.
"But if we only claim what we invented, we won't make as much money!" The entire purpose is to protect what you invent, fuckwads. Stop stifling innovation by creating a pencil but applying for a patent that attempts to cover any tool used to write.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Amen to that. You only need to go over to groklaw.net to see how patents get raped. Patent are supposed to help new ideas get a foot in the market but instead are being used to stilfe progress and innovation. The whole patent system needs to be torn down and started again from scratch.
Patenting genes is just wrong (Score:1)
Patenting genes is just wrong. I know these companies spend alot in research but you shouldnt just be able own a gene. Cancer is a battle everyone needs to come together and fight on the same team.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this is their grand scheme:
1 Find Gene ...
2 Patent Gene
3 Sue the Gene out of existence
4 Cancer Gone
5
6 PROFIT!
Re: (Score:1)
My idea is rather:
1. Find out you have cancer (or any other patented illness)
2. Sue patent owner. It's their "product" after all.
3. Profit!!!
Mod parent up! Bio-research companies would be shaking in their boots if this could be done.
Sometime in the last century, the crucial 1st step, called "observation" in the Scientific Method [wikipedia.org] became just another greed-based megacorp business.
We can't "look," so we can't hypothesize, experiment, make conclusions and test the hypotheses... because someone else is allowed to own the genes that we all share. So why the hell can we not sue, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pff, well I'm going to patent water. Try having your rain without any water. =P
Who Owns you? (Score:2, Informative)
If the patent is ruled valid... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because they'd get counter-sued for producing more of them in violation of the patent?
Actually, I may have just seen why allowing the patenting of (pre existing) genes is insane in the membrane.
Re: (Score:2)
ip law is a failure (Score:4, Interesting)
the idea that you create a temporary monopoly (which seems to get less temporary every day) in order to encourage the creation of arts and technology has costs which outweigh the supposed benefit. for those who actually create, there are ancillary revenue streams which require no such legal protection
its time to completely trash ip law. all of it. copyrights, patents: trash it, all of it
if it were 1860 (Score:2)
and i was calling for the abolition of slavery, would your reply
hat's a rather childish solution. If it's broken, you have to sit down and identify why it is broken and figure out how to fix it...oh but yeah, that requires *work*, doesn't it? Of course, you are itching to respond with, "yeah, good luck getting congress to do some work." And I'll respond with, "yeah, good luck getting Congress to dismantle the patent system." At least we have to start with a sensible, realistic solution (yours isn't) and try
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't understand what you are talking about, do you?
"intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it"
Do you even know the definition for ANY of those word with 6 or more characters in them?
no (Score:2)
i'm a complete idiot and there's nothing wrong with ip law. it is a field of gold and honey, there are no abuses that might outweigh benefits
continue on in ignorant bliss. consider your worldview completely unchallenged. everything is wonderful with ip law
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
nice over reaction.
There is a place for IP. It's a good thing that has gone too far. Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Re: (Score:2)
The "carrot of financial reward" (Score:1, Insightful)
Yep, it's already available to drug and biotech companies for their investments into developing treatments for many conditions and diseases. They can exploit these innovations/inventions for the legal time the patent is valid, and they do. They make a LOT of money as a return for their investments.
However, the development of drugs or artificial implants does not entitle a company to patent the relevant body part. A gene is a body part. Why should it be any different? I seriously object to any part of my nat
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Patents idea (Score:1, Interesting)
Idea:
If patents are created to be able to recoup costs of research/inventing/etc, why not put a profit cap instead AND a limit date?
Example: I spend $1Million on a 10 year research, I invent X thing, I can hold a patent on said invention for 20 years from patent date, OR for when I turn a net profit of $10Million; thus assuring that I recoup the invested money, and make a profit on it, or if I decide not to mass produce my invention for 20 years (or I cannot sell it) someone else can do it in 20 years.
Pwned! (Score:2)
DNA is in the public domain - God (Score:1)
Of course if I was actually God's proxy, I would have had first post.