Will the Supreme Court End Human Gene Patents? 228
An anonymous reader writes "Monday, the Supreme Court will hear a case on the validity of breast cancer gene patents. The court has a chance to end human gene patents after three decades. From the article: 'Since the 1980s, patent lawyers have been claiming pieces of humanity's genetic code. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted thousands of gene patents. The Federal Circuit, the court that hears all patent appeals, has consistently ruled such patents are legal.
But the judicial winds have been shifting. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the legality of gene patents. And recently, the Supreme Court has grown increasingly skeptical of the Federal Circuit's patent-friendly jurisprudence.
Meanwhile, a growing number of researchers, health care providers, and public interest groups have raised concerns about the harms of gene patents. The American Civil Liberties Union estimates that more than 40 percent of genes are now patented. Those patents have created "patent thickets" that make it difficult for scientists to do genetic research and commercialize their results. Monopolies on genetic testing have raised prices and reduced patient options.'"
The government doing something right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on... seriously now...
No.
Re:The government doing something right? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't have high expectations for any institution that's over 10% Scalia, but once in a while the government does manage to do the right thing, at least for the wrong reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have high expectations for any institution that's over 10% Scalia, but once in a while the government does manage to do the right thing, at least for the wrong reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtRlkEI8SV4 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"That's the only case, though, in that it's the big liberal-wing failure that's always trotted out to counter dozens of cases where the conservative wing has let the country down."
Not to pick on you particularly, but this whole argument makes me sick.
The TRUTH is that BOTH sides have been letting The People down for decades. Any other viewpoint is fantasyland.
Natural vs artificial (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that, if the "human gene" occurs naturally, that is, already existed before being discovered, they should not be patentable --- something akin to "prior art"
But on the other hand, if the "human gene" is has a new sequence, result of some artificial manipulation in some lab, and has special characteristics, then I think it would be unfair to prohibit those who have invested their time and effort in creating something that has never existed before in patenting the new genetic sequence(s)
Re:Natural vs artificial (Score:5, Insightful)
And what happens that that gene is later found to exist somewhere in nature?
What about those "artificial" genes made in labs that make their way into organisms through 100% natural methods? Should some biotechnology company "own" all of our rice just because some farmer decided to use their seeds, and their crops then crossed with, thereby contaminating all nearby farmers' rice crops?
And it takes a virus or bacterium to transfer the gene into a plant... should humans really receive the patent for doing something that a lowly microorganism does itself?
Patenting living things is just a bad idea. Period.
Re:Natural vs artificial (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse yet, (and bringing the discussion back home to humans), could a human be charged a license fee for reproducing (having children) simply because they paid for a medical treatment that involved gene therapy which becomes part of their DNA?
Its time to end this silliness before it becomes a pervasive a cell phone patents and software patents. If doing so turns off all research into genetic medicine so be it. (It won't, but that's what the drug companies will claim, and its long past time to call their bluff). Someone else will step up and provide it on more agreeable terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that is truly a sickening thought, and one I didn't even think of. Yikes. Now that would be bad.
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens that that gene is later found to exist somewhere in nature?
That's fairly unlikely, especially if it is existing in the patented organism.
Should some biotechnology company "own" all of our rice just because some farmer decided to use their seeds, and their crops then crossed with, thereby contaminating all nearby farmers' rice crops?
Certainty not.
And it takes a virus or bacterium to transfer the gene into a plant... should humans really receive the patent for doing something that a lowly microorganism does itself?
I'm not sure I follow why that matters. In the end all inventions are just a more precise manipulation of natural forces.
Patenting living things is just a bad idea. Period.
Why? If you don't like patented organisms, you don't have to use them. Me, some of my favorite things exist because of patents, and humanity has gotten some great stuff out of patented organisms that in all likelihood would not exist if they could simply be reproduced.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? If you don't like patented organisms, you don't have to use them. Me, some of my favorite things exist because of patents, and humanity has gotten some great stuff out of patented organisms that in all likelihood would not exist if they could simply be reproduced.
What happens when a genetically-modified crop is so widely grown that it has spread its destructive, patented genes to all other nearby "non-GMO" crops? Does that mean that I need to avoid all products containing even a trace amount of that crop, because either I can't trust it to be non-GMO or even know for sure that there's a 99% chance that all of that crop IS GMO? Take corn for example... good luck finding even an ear of corn that hasn't been genetically borked, let alone a bottle of whiskey or cornbr
Re:Natural vs artificial (Score:5, Insightful)
You may find it comforting to know that, so far, GM crops have had no direct effect on human health. (Unlike, say, drugged livestock [purefood.org].) Plants don't use often use hormones that are compatible with the human body, so the likelihood of health problems occurring is somewhat diminished. One notable exception is the fig, which produces a chemical similar to estrogen.
Also, a lot of people don't understand that genes only spread when they're evolutionary beneficial to the organism receiving them. Usually, the benefit is either metabolic (the ability to digest a new nutrient) or defensive (the ability to survive pesticides or natural poisons.) The worst thing that can happen to crops is that they become easier to farm. To date, the biggest legal case involving the spread of genes was a case where a farmer was re-selling herbicide-resistant seeds patented by Monsanto; pollen from a neighbouring field had spread over to his. But it's not like this affects you, the grocery-buyer—if Monsanto had contract terms saying they can sue their customers' customers, no one would do business with them!
Most of the paranoia regarding the genetic manipulation of crops is the product of a culture accustomed to paranoid science fiction. There are plenty of cases where business practices are doing serious harm to human health—factory farming, for example, is responsible for several serious diseases, some of them incurable—but GM crops really aren't an issue. We simply don't know enough to create a real mess yet.
Re:Natural vs artificial (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually what Mosanto has done is wiped out hundreds of small farms by predatory lawsuits which serves large agrobusiness (their primary customers) just fine. So big players are using GM to push small farms out of existence.
Re: (Score:3)
The big problem that you just ignored is that when you create crops that are resistant to a certain disease then that disease tends to mutate into something that they are still vulnerable to. Just like excessive pesticide use this creates an arms race, not just between the manufacturers and the diseases but between individual farmers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The worst thing that can happen to crops is that they become easier to farm. To date, the biggest legal case involving the spread of genes was a case where a farmer was re-selling herbicide-resistant seeds patented by Monsanto; pollen from a neighbouring field had spread over to his. But it's not like this affects you, the grocery-buyerâ"if Monsanto had contract terms saying they can sue their customers' customers, no one would do business with them!
Of course, this affects me, the grocery buyer. The increased monopolization and mono-culture of agriculture created by companies like Monsanto does affect me. A great many of the foods I buy are from a limited number of lines which gives companies like Monsanto power over my food choices as they actively work to suppress the growth of other lines. All in the name of profit.
Monsanto doesn't have to have a specific clause saying they can sue their customers' customers. The fact that they have a patent on on
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a lot of people don't understand that genes only spread when they're evolutionary beneficial to the organism receiving them.
Funny thing, because those people would be correct. Genes spread because that's just what they do. Reproduction spreads genes as far and as fast as possible. If you reproduce, you have spread your genes, so the only way to prevent genes from spreading is to cause sterility. Natural selection is a statistical long game. Over many generations, those genes which are not beneficial will have a slightly lower likelihood of surviving to reproduce, and thus will occur in the population with reduced frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Natural vs artificial (Score:5, Interesting)
Please, take a moment to think.
Shall we grant ownership of asteroids, planets and other celestial objects to the astronomer who discovers them?
If not, why should other natural objects be treated differently?
If you are talking about patentig a sequencing method or a method to change a natural gene, then, by all means, grant a patent. Otherwise, forget it.
And then we have to deal with unintended consequences... What if the changed gene has deadly side-effects?
The corporations want the government to assure them their profits, but they don't want to take the risk [snopes.com].
Maybe we should not grant genetic patents at all?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way to prove this unless you are able to look into an alternate reality where patents do not exist. That's one of the problems with copyrights and patents right now: they exist based on the assumption that there would barely be any innovation without them, but it is an unproven assumption, and any laws which don't have evidence to back them up are unjustified.
Possibly Somalia until the US convinces the government that institutionalised rape is small potatoes in comparison to the heartbreak of music piracy.
Re:Natural vs artificial (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't about being fair. It is about what produces the best result for society as a whole.
Re:Natural vs artificial (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't about being fair. It is about what produces the best result for society as a whole.
No it's not. It's about appeasing the lobby group with the biggest legal fund. So even if the Supreme Court did happen to strike down gene patents (which I believe unlikely), there's no reason why those interest groups wouldn't just lobby Congress to get the law changed in their favour. I would guess they would have a high likelihood of success there, given that all politicians are corrupt.
The definition of insanity (Score:3)
While I don't disagree with your point, it is a secondary issue. Correctable when people stop voting for career politicians and start voting in functional members of society. As Socrates stated, "the only people that should be representing people in the Republic are those that don't wish to be in politics.
Yeah yeah, not likely any time soon but if enough people spread the message it can and will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point. And since these patents are used to concentrate wealth, something which has *ALWAYS* been bad for society as a whole, then we are in agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if we are in agreement. Sure patents concentrate wealth, but they also provide motivation. The world isn't black and white, you have to try to figure out the net result to decide what is best for society.
Re: (Score:2)
Motivation has never been necessary. It may only be necessary for investors to sink money into things, but people create and invent because it is in their nature to do so. Putting money behind it only gives cause for others to want to control and limit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, people like to invent and create new things. But this is isn't a binary situation. There wasn't much incentive that patents could have provided for the invention of something like the wheel. But there are all kinds of inventions that simply would never have been made were it not for many millions of dollars spent on the effort, money spent with the intent of reaping a return based on the exclusive use of the results.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I postulate that they would have come about in another manner then. The closest we have to a proper experimental control is industries that lack any IP protection, the fashion industry springs to mind, yet every year designers come up with new designs -and make a fortune out of them.
They simply found OTHER ways to make money out of invention and fund the process. Removing the patent protection does't mean removing the financial incentive from those that want (or need) it, it simply means the methodology by
Re: (Score:3)
Human genes as they occur naturally are not patentable.
It is only after they are isolated and a use is found for them in the isolated form that they become patentable.
Re: (Score:2)
This exactly. The genes aren't patented. Doing something novel with them is what's being patented. These patents are truly the only thing that allows the scientists doing the research to monetize the results. That, in turn, has substantially increased the number of folks doing research and publishing that said research. Without the forced publication of patents, a lot of this research will be locked away in corporate black boxes that are treated as trade secrets.
Wile the patents system has flaws, doing nothing would be much worse.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree here.
Monetize a specific treatment, don't monetize the idea of treatment - it's incredibly unethical and immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the second case qualifies as human gene.
Re: (Score:3)
Every time two organisms come together and combine their genome to create a new organism they are manipulating the gene code to something that is unique and different.
It's a serious issue if two people randomly create a genetic improvement in their offspring and are now able to be prosecuted because of it.
Patent a way of making children able to be born with green eyes. Two people naturally have a child with green eyes, so they have breached your patent because they didn't pay you for it. That's an issue tha
Re: (Score:3)
Just a bit of devil's advocate : they're all unique, to an extent. My genome is different from yours. Both of ours differ from any previously discovered. It would be like trying to claim all book copyrights are invalid because books have existed previously
That's not to say genes should be viable for patents. They most certainly should not; mostly because no one invented them. All we can do is observe and possibly manipulate them. There's no invention there, no creation. There's nothing to patent in
Re: (Score:2)
For discrete molecules, you can only win a "composition of matter" patent on something that does not exist naturally. You can, however, patent a method for extracting, manipulating, packaging a natural product or even a specific use for it. The courts seem to have created a distinction between polynucleotides and small molecules; i.e., awarding a patent for a sequence of DNA is basically the same as awarding a composition of matter patent on a natural product and should not be allowed. If anything, they sho
Re: (Score:2)
.
Most genes are on the order of a thousand base pairs. While not insignificant in number, why not just patent all combinations? Whats preventing an organization from patenting all possible 100 base pair combinations? If someone adds a thousand basepairs onto one of your sequences, you can claim they violate your rights.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet has made intellectual property a thing of the past.
Talk like that will do nothing good for the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Um.. so we are all going to be able to look up our genes online and the information we find will be sufficient for us to make our own tests and treatments?
I'm all for burying the whole 'intellectual property' idea but your statement doesn't make any sense to me.
Re: (Score:3)
If something can replicate/reproduce naturally it can't be patented.
Says who? What about Diamond v. Chakrabarty, in which the Supreme Court said that genetically modified oil-eating bacteria (which can replicate naturally) were patentable?
Sadly the Federal Appeals courts have been more than a bit ignorant in their rulings. But then most of them have never taken any science after high school. Forget jury trials, you don't have to have graduated HS to serve on a jury.
Of the judges on the Federal Circuit, (aside from their JDs) there are:
Rader - B.A. in English
Newman - Ph.D. in Chemistry
Lourie - Ph.D. in Chemistry
Dyk - B.A. in English
Prost - B.S. in something sciencey
Moore - M.S. in EE
O'Malley - B.A.
Reyna - B.A.
Wallach - B.A.
Taranto - B.A.
So, while not science heavy, at 4/9, it's actually a m
Re:The government doing something right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Patenting genes, which aren't fucking inventions - is purely insane.
I don't know the answer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is figuring out what constitutes a gene for something really the Herculean effort (deserving of patent protection) it used to be?
Or is it more like the Oklahoma Land Grab at this point?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is figuring out what constitutes a gene for something really the Herculean effort (deserving of patent protection) it used to be?
Did Einstein patent the Theory of Relativity?
Did Linus Pauling patent the Nature of the Chemical Bond?
Does any astronomer who discovers a planet patent it?
If I could dig a ditch from NY to LA. Should I get a patent on that ditch? After all, it would be a Herculean effort.
Re: (Score:2)
If I could dig a ditch from NY to LA. Should I get a patent on that ditch?
No, because there is prior art going back at least as far as the Roman Empire (assuming that you are smart enough to then fill the ditch with water).
OTOH, you have the right to charge tolls on it (assuming that you got the rights of way, first -- otherwise you get the right to a small cell in a big pen), and these tolls are what encourage people to build them. Well, mostly encouraged them, since canals aren't that easy to build in new places, anymore. The canal between the Rhine and the Danube doesn't cou
Re:I don't know the answer. (Score:5, Informative)
Is figuring out what constitutes a gene for something really the Herculean effort (deserving of patent protection) it used to be?
As AC pointed out, "Herculean effort" is not necessarily deserving of patent protection. That being said, yes, figuring out what constitutes "the gene for X" (which for the vast majority of diseases is actually more like "the N genes and assorted epigenetic modifications for X," where N is some fairly large number) is still in most cases a task which would challenge even a demigod. Since those of us working in the fields aren't demigods, we have to rely on a whole lot of skull sweat and processor cycles. It still doesn't mean we should get to patent what we discover through this process, for the simple reason that they are discoveries rather than inventions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or is it more like the Oklahoma Land Grab at this point?
Undeniably this.
The equipment to do the work is cheap and no longer requires a PhD... In a few years it will be as simple to sequence genes as it is to make a BLT.
This will get struck down (Score:4, Interesting)
Then again, I supposed Citizens United is very unpopular too, and that seems to have passed...
Re:This will get struck down (Score:4, Interesting)
The same reason the court ruled in favor of Citizens United is why they rule against gene patents.
On a more favorable front. The SEC is likely to require all publicly traded corps to publish their political activities.
Most companies fear public backlash more than their non-favored candidate in office.
Doubtful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The masses don't know about this story yet. Once the Gay Marriage debate dies down a bit (or once the decision is released) and this becomes the next big court case, you will see overwhelming popular support for eliminating gene patents.
Well, I agree, with clarification that it will be popular support for eliminating the gay gene patent.
Sulu, you've had your fun. Now it's time to share your innovation with the rest of the galaxy.
The purpose of a gene is a discovery (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are in this fucked up country...
Re: (Score:2)
they had to rewrite the admissibility rules to allow this shit, that's what happened.
Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery (Score:4, Informative)
Clearly finding out the purpose of a gene will always be a discovery and not an invention. Discoveries are not patentable.
"The term “invention” means invention or discovery." 35 U.S.C. 100(a) [cornell.edu]. You can argue that this is not what the law should be, but this has been the law in the United States since at least 1952.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably much further.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Re: (Score:2)
I never understood how they could allow this to happen in the first place. Clearly finding out the purpose of a gene will always be a discovery and not an invention. Discoveries are not patentable.
35 USC 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that they can't patent the gene itself, only an application of that gene. So for example if they find one that can stop breast cancer by turning it off they can patent it for that use and stop people being cured without paying them first.
"Your money or you life" sound familiar?
Patent Validity (Score:3, Insightful)
They shouldn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we should be able to patent similar sized sections of machine code as well.
This shit will never get better until it gets SO BAD that not even the rich greedy monopolies can make money. THEN we can fix the situation and end all patents (and copyrights too).
Life is copying. You are trillions of copies of a single cell. We owe the entire advancement of the Human race to our ability to freely share ideas -- It's the only thing we have over the damn dirty apes, and we're squandering it for greed...
Re: (Score:3)
The rich greedy monopolies are the ones having their lobbyists write the rules.
They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot, and they aren't going to let their political pets do so either.
The law has always and always will mean whatever the elite damn well say it does.
Where does the nonsense end? (Score:2)
Money is just perception and power, if human health can't be exempt from the pull of money then what can be exempt? The health of the environment has become secondary to calculating who owns it, and now human health is directly subordinate to ownership and control. At what stage in human evolution do people with common sense stop and say "If we don't stop behaving like crazy people, we're going to become extinct".
Because that'
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't really think I had decided where I stood on this issue until I read that. Thanks, now I know.
Money isn't just perception and power, it is a method of measuring the value of goods and services for the purpose of exchange. It seems almost stupid to have to say it, but it's the overlooked point here.
The absuridity that medicine and by extension human health shouldn't have a monetary value should be obvious to anyone. To say anything else is to say that doctors and researchers should either not exist b
Intentional nonsense? (Score:2)
Oops, I wrote "should either not exist beyond voluntary efforts." when I should have written "should either not exist beyond voluntary efforts, or be compelled against their will."
I've been bothered by a theory lately that some people, politicians in particular, may be manipulating public perception. What if there are people who recognize that a position is popular that they disagree with for really good reasons and act like they're in favor of the position with the intention to deliberately lose the publi
Monsanto? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um the genes the Monsanto has patented are not naturally occurring.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong approach (Score:3)
All the arguments in the summary are economic ones. Creating monopolies, raising prices, and market distortions are what patents are for. It's a reward to the creator that is supposed to drive creativity and innovation.
The real argument against gene patents is that they shouldn't be patentable in the first place. They are natural phenomena, not inventions.
Re:Wrong approach (Score:4, Interesting)
Natural phenomena? Wrong argument, lefty. Our genes were wholly Created six thousand years ago by Our Lord in the image of His Holy Sequences. Hence, no human can claim invention on a gene in the face of Divine Prior Art.
Re: (Score:2)
What is patented is the isolated gene, which is not a natural product.
Every patented composition is in fact a transformation of naturally occurring substances. The so-called gene patents are no exception.
Re: (Score:2)
All the arguments in the summary are economic ones. Creating monopolies, raising prices, and market distortions are what patents are for. It's a reward to the creator that is supposed to drive creativity and innovation.
No, it's not. Patents have nothing to do with a reward - the invention is likely commercially valuable anyway, which is their reward for it. Rather, patents are a grant in exchange for public disclosure, as an incentive to destroy trade secrets. For example, here, they could've set up a lab that tested for the gene as a service, with you shipping DNA to them and them responding with a "yes, you're susceptible to this type of cancer" or "no, you're not", without ever letting on which sequence they were actua
The test (Score:5, Interesting)
IMO, all of the comments and discussion about whether genes are inventions or discoveries or natural or artificial are completely irrelevant.
The purpose of the patent system is to advance the useful arts and sciences. Given that there is obviously a lot of scientific (and commercial) value in identifying the functions of particular parts of our genetic code, that's something we want to encourage. Patents are supposed to do this by encouraging research results to be published so that other researchers can use them for inspiration and as building blocks. If that's not happening, then patents aren't providing any value.
So, a very simple test: If researchers routinely use the patent database as a source of inspiration and a place to find tools to solve specific problems, and are very willing to look for and license patents that help them make progress, then they're good and useful. If, however, patents are an obstruction, if researchers actively avoid looking at patents to avoid possible treble damages from willful infringement, or if they block useful avenues of research, then they're not providing any value and should be discarded.
The question of whether something is invented or discovered is just semantics with no real impact on whether or not it's useful or whether or not patent protection will accelerate or slow progress in the field.
Re: (Score:2)
So, a very simple test: If researchers routinely use the patent database as a source of inspiration and a place to find tools to solve specific problems, and are very willing to look for and license patents that help them make progress, then they're good and useful. If, however, patents are an obstruction, if researchers actively avoid looking at patents to avoid possible treble damages from willful infringement, or if they block useful avenues of research, then they're not providing any value and should be discarded.
I think regulated FRAND patents would be necessary if you had any patents on genes at all. Unfortunately, that means there will be special interest groups that will try to carve exceptions in to the regulations (and the laws supporting them). However, managed properly, FRAND could work for genes that are deemed patentable because the government can make sure the barrier to entry is low enough so that there's no Apple/Samsung/Motorola crap going on.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice, but you should probably give that speech to Congress not the Supreme Court. The court only cares if Congress stays within their constitutionally granted power, not if they're doing it smart or even right. After all it's not hard to argue that since patents are valuable it is incentive to create patentable inventions. It might not work that well in practice but the Supreme Court isn't going to overrule Congress on a thing like that.
Re:The test (Score:4, Insightful)
The question of whether something is invented or discovered is just semantics with no real impact on whether or not it's useful or whether or not patent protection will accelerate or slow progress in the field.
Perhaps not the field per se, but if patents were granted for mere discoveries instead of inventions, then society itself will fall apart. Do we owe Higgs royalties for "discovering" the Higgs Boson? Or perhaps we owe them to CERN, whose LHC actually did the discovering?
Patenting discoveries does not lead to the promotion of the useful arts and sciences in any situation. Instead, it leads to extreme corporatism.
Re: (Score:3)
IMO, all of the comments and discussion about whether genes are inventions or discoveries or natural or artificial are completely irrelevant.
The purpose of the patent system is to advance the useful arts and sciences. Given that there is obviously a lot of scientific (and commercial) value in identifying the functions of particular parts of our genetic code, that's something we want to encourage. Patents are supposed to do this by encouraging research results to be published so that other researchers can use them for inspiration and as building blocks. If that's not happening, then patents aren't providing any value.
So, a very simple test: If researchers routinely use the patent database as a source of inspiration and a place to find tools to solve specific problems, and are very willing to look for and license patents that help them make progress, then they're good and useful. If, however, patents are an obstruction, if researchers actively avoid looking at patents to avoid possible treble damages from willful infringement, or if they block useful avenues of research, then they're not providing any value and should be discarded.
That's only a good test if researchers never published anywhere else. As you note, patents encourage research results to be published, but there's nothing that says that the publication must be the patent. Rather, patents eliminate the necessity of keeping trade secrets, where you wouldn't publish anywhere. By getting the patent, you are free to publish as much as you want, without losing any exclusive rights to the invention.
Specifically, without patents, researchers at pharma companies wouldn't be publis
Re: (Score:3)
IMO, all of the comments and discussion about whether genes are inventions or discoveries or natural or artificial are completely irrelevant.
The purpose of the patent system is to advance the useful arts and sciences. Given that there is obviously a lot of scientific (and commercial) value in identifying the functions of particular parts of our genetic code, that's something we want to encourage. Patents are supposed to do this by encouraging research results to be published so that other researchers can use them for inspiration and as building blocks. If that's not happening, then patents aren't providing any value.
So, a very simple test: If researchers routinely use the patent database as a source of inspiration and a place to find tools to solve specific problems, and are very willing to look for and license patents that help them make progress, then they're good and useful. If, however, patents are an obstruction, if researchers actively avoid looking at patents to avoid possible treble damages from willful infringement, or if they block useful avenues of research, then they're not providing any value and should be discarded.
That's only a good test if researchers never published anywhere else. As you note, patents encourage research results to be published, but there's nothing that says that the publication must be the patent. Rather, patents eliminate the necessity of keeping trade secrets, where you wouldn't publish anywhere. By getting the patent, you are free to publish as much as you want, without losing any exclusive rights to the invention.
You are assuming that folks don't invent things all the time and just never think them novel enough to patent them. For instance: Most of the software patents granted infringe "undisclosed" prior art -- It's just that the prior art isn't "disclosed" because no one thought removing expired indices from a hash table while you traverse it was innovative enough to get it patented, or cared to. However, Linux was threatened with just such a bogus patent. Point being: There is no risk to disclosing -- Crap has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pure unabashed speculation on your part. I can't believe you posted that. You clearly don't apply the methods of rationality in your thinking processes. I mean, really, are you daft? You are blinded by your profession to the point you don't even realize YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support your beliefs, and are merely parroting whatever bullshit means your life hasn't been wasted harming society. I feel bad for you. You should quit your job before you wake up one day, realize I'm right, and kill yourself. Your kind (the willfully ignorant) disgusts me.
Hi, troll. If you want to have a rational debate, go back and remove all of the above and its ilk from your post. I don't waste my time with assholes.
I have a question (Score:4, Funny)
If 96% of all human DNA is considered "junk" (as was the claim sometime in or around 2004), why the rush to claim it? In the interests of rampant capitalism? And why the reversal of that claim in 2011?
Fuck you, you go play your own games, I'm taking my marbles and going home. When the rivers are dry, the trees are dead and the animals starving, the fields fallow and the supermarkets empty, the skies empty and the oceans sterile; then perhaps you'll realise that YOU CAN'T EAT MONEY. Go do something fucking useful like plant some fucking potatoes. DO SOMETHING USEFUL FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY OR GET THE FUCK OFF MY PLANET.
Still here. (Score:2)
I'm still here. It's my planet too.
When they stop paying me for going to work I'll find a new job. That's capitalism. (So is doing genetic research necessary to provide better medicine.) Even if the grocery store, mortgage company, utilities companies and Wal-Marts said "take what you need" I'd still find a new job. I'd prefer to work at a Waffle House because I'd enjoy it more and it's frankly easier work. Capitalism doesn't mean that I wouldn't work at all without it, it just means that I do what's more v
No biotech patent thickets (Score:2)
"Those patents have created "patent thickets" that make it difficult for scientists to do genetic research and commercialize their results. "
Except that empirical research shows that gene patents have not created thickets or impeded genetic research or the commercialization of that research. See John P. Walsh, Charlene Cho, and Wesley M. Cohen, Patents, Material Transfers and Access to Research Inputs in Biomedical Research [druid.dk] , Final Report to the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee Intellectual P
bet (Score:2)
I bet that the special interests will have too much at stake to let this be overturned.
I expect a swift congressional override in such a case.
Put the Case in Context (Score:3, Interesting)
incentives to do the right thing. (Score:2)
If past history is any indication... (Score:4, Informative)
Dred Scott v Sandford -- slaves are private property
Roe v Wade -- an unborn child is private property
This case -- your genes are private property, when a company "isolates" them from the human body
Way to go 'Chief Justices' - reassign what is God's, to man...
Re: (Score:2)
Way to go 'Chief Justices' - reassign what is God's, to man...
When God shows up with proof of ownership, I am sure that it would be duly considered.
May not matter which way the Supreme Court rules (Score:3)
If the Supreme Court rules against gene patents, the biotech companies making the big bucks off these things may well pressure Congress to pass laws to make such patents legal.
A looming disaster... (Score:2)
Big Pharma and gene patents are doing to the human genome what corporate IP is doing everywhere else, turning the human genome into another economic turf war and locking up innovation and literally costing people's lives. ATTENTION this is not a theoretical conversation. See this deeply disheartening video [youtube.com]. If you are not deeply disgusted after seeing that video you should see your health professional to determine if perhaps you are not in fact human. Corporations exist for profit. If it profits them the yo
Link to a gene patent? (Score:2)
Can someone post a link to a Gene patent? Based on a previous Slashdot comment, I was led to believe that the patent is not on the gene, but on the method of testing for the presence of the gene. The latter would be a perfectly valid utility patent. But these articles always act like th patent is on the gene itself. Which is true?
Imminent Domain (Score:2)
If the courts decide that the genes employees discover on behalf of these drug companies really should be considered company 'property' then so be it. Real property (in the US anyway) is subject to imminent domain. If the government feels that the people 'need' a new road that happens to travel across your property they give you what somebody deems is a fair price for your home and they bulldoze it. If shaving a couple of minutes off of somebody's morning comute is worth disregarding personal property th
Re: (Score:2)
The profit presumably comes from the therapies developed with this knowledge, just like in other fields of inquiry. Just because the discoverers of electrons or photons couldn't patent electrons and photons didn't mean novel inventions couldn't be built with the newfound insights.
Re: (Score:2)
Therapies that anyone else can provide at lower cost because they don't need to pay back the money it cost to do the research?
Re: (Score:2)
Just knowing what a gene does no more automatically guarantees one can develop a therapy than identifying an electron confers the ability to build a battery.
If you didn't invent the gene and its function, you should have no more right to patent it than Hubble did the expansion of the universe. They are discoveries, not inventions, and if that makes monetizing them difficult, then tough.
Re: (Score:2)
So chemical patents should be thrown out too? Because X + Y = Z is a discovery not an invention.
Re: (Score:2)
You lost all credibility with the phrase "crime against Nature".
Re: (Score:2)
Using pigs to produce human insulin isn't an INVENTION, it's the result of a process of DISCOVERY that a sequence we ALL CARRY can be transplanted into a pig embryo to make it produce huge quantities of a hormone that's useless to pigs but essential for the survival of people who wouldn't need it if they ate proper food (I can cite a source: a friend who was on 140mg insulin a day in the UK moved to Spain and went on a prepackaged-free diet. I mean, everything. Her insulin use went to ZERO within six weeks, she still lives in Spain and she is still off the insulin because she is eating PROPERLY).
The application is THE invention. By YOUR logic every invention is just chipping AWAY the marble to reveal the STATUE inside THE block
I can CITE a source: a friend who was on 140mg insulin a day in the UK moved TO Spain and WENT on a prepackaged-free diet. I MEAN, everything. She stopped using HER insulin and Her oxygen USE went to ZERO.
Re: (Score:2)
...and I should pay any mind to an AC who cannot spell "ANECDOTE" why?
Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
I am perfectly well aware of this, several members of my family, myself included, are type 1 or type 2 (I am type 2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, but more and more I'd prefer the bumbling, inefficient and somewhat foolish attempt at controlling their subject's life to our highly efficient, market driven efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding... 80% of the superpac money that shaped the last 2 years of this nation's political elections came from fewer than 200 people. The top 400 richest people hold half the nation's wealth and the top 10.000 hold over 95% of that nations wealth. You think for a second if these people lock up the future of medical technology as well as all the other IP, that they won't lock humanity out cold. If you can't see checkmate in 4 moves, you should get your eyes checked. The race is nearly owned lock, s