Slashdot Mirror
PTO's New DNA Guidelines
Robert Wilde writes "The National Law Journal has published an analysis of the PTO's new proposed DNA guidelines. The PTO will accept written comments until March 22. " I think this is one of the most important issues of the upcoming years - can company's patent genes that exist in all of us? What work should be done in genetics? What do you folks think?
I have to give this a hefty "bah". :)
You both picked archtypical arguments on the poles of the issue. Patents are useful to the extent which they speed "discovery" (or innovation, or whatever you want to label it).
I don't think anyone _should_ argue that innovation won't happen without patents. It certainly can be shown to have happened again and again in the past (It can also be shown how some technology was kept hidden through trade secret mechanisms which could have benefitted society more had it been released under patent). Its the rate of innovation that is at question (again, I'm using innovation, but discovery would work just as well).
IMHO, Patents have a valid use, but the extent to which they are applied is negatively correlated with the cost to society so they should be scrutinized and limited as much as possible.
Unfortunately that isn't happening. And as much as the middle ground is probably where the answer to this lies, I think it may be better to argue against patents, at least until they become more reasonable.
Ah well.... I do think the original posters point about the original intent of patent is a valid one.
Pax -- Ob
I'm not saying that they will not happen, I'm just saying that they will happen much, much more slowly.
:)
OK, in that case, what you are saying is valid. I may take umbrage at that much, much part, but that is only because I haven't seen data.
What our laws should do is foster advance as quickly as possible.
Ahh...but our laws don't do that. To guarentee the maximum rate of discovery, we should guarentee the monopoly for life! Maybe even extend patents in other ways. But your point about pragmatism is well taken.
I agree that a pragmatic solution is best. I would favor modifying the patent system to provide protection for 2 years. Enough to guarentee return on research, but enough to bring in competition quick enough so that the dissinfranchised can get the same quality of care as the rest of us.
Bear in mind that 96% of research (in the world) is done in less than 10 countries [1]. We are quickly getting into a social justice issue if there is a distrobutional conflict with dispersing technology to 3rd world nations (hint: there is).
I don't care how you "feel". Your not morally right if your not actually right.
Hmmm... I care how others feel because I think they have wisdom to share with me. However, Im not really concerned with morality. I'm concerned with what is best for humanity as a whole. You have failed to convince me that the good of protection outweighs the bad of protection (not that it matters).
What I really want to say is that there are times in economic analysis where we can say that something is true based on theories of rationality, competitive behavior, and a myriad assortment of other factors. With patents, we have a fundamental positive result pitted against a fundamental negative result, and we can't say what is best without studying data. I have looked hard and not found any (non-anectdotal) data.
In the absence of data or undisputed theory, opinionated people such as ourselves can discuss our thoughts, but can't be sure of our "correctness".
I guess I should apologise for not seeming sensitive to your human argument, but I really believe that policy should be the result of rational thought. *shrug* So to that I will strive.
[1] Bayoumi, Tarnim, Coc, Helpman "R&D spillovers in global growth" : 1995
Pax -- Ob
(or at least some of them).
Specificly, I am referring to an interesting story I heard on NPR this morning referring to a report on the British public health system.
To summarize, it said that even though the current flu epidemics were throwing into sharp relief the problems of the public system, that system would survive. What it would NOT handle would be the costs of using genetic processes that were currently being patented, and would presumably come into economic use in 10 to 20 years (these may be conservative numbers- I really don't know).
The interesting thing is to what extent liberal governments will be willing to bear the brunt of a foreign nations intellectual property.
You see various well known international violations of IP now, but even in those situations, it is hard to see how the governments are in direct conflict with supporting the IP. Once an incentive is in place to circumvent the international law, I would expect far more countries choosing to shun WTO involvement just to avoid the TRIPS agreement.
To throw out an incredibly ill thought out prediction= It is possible that the costs of supporting international IP will outweigh the gains of WTO membership sometime in the future- especially for developing nations, or nations which can utilize semi-protectionary measures such as regional free trade zones to mitigate the loss of truely international trade.
Just some random thoughts...
Pax -- Ob
Although it's OpenSource(tm), the human genome has a very long compile cycle. You can't just ./conceive && make. Would it be feasible to port the genome to Perl? I know it would run more slowly, but it should be sufficient for politicians and the like, and it would allow for true RAD (Rapid Adolescent Development). Humanity would also benefit from regular expressions and DBI (DNA-Based Intelligence).
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Let me ask you something.
Would you prefer it if pharmaceutical companies did not patent there discoveries, instead holding them as trade secret? If that were the case then the information would never become a part of human knowledge.
I don't think its to unreasonable to allow a company, if it finances its own research to claim genetic patents, however I do draw the line at patenting DNA witch is a majority of human beings. When a patent is filed it usually means that if it were not, that knowledge would simply not exist at all.
The genetic industry, much like the computer industry in past few decades is rapidly becoming a market driven system, meaning that most of the research and development in the field is going to be done by corporations rather universities. If a corporation cannot gain a competitive advantage by having spending the money to research, then it will not do research at all.
Rather then cause the genetic field to grow, it would do more to retard it. Imagine if no computer companies were allowed to gain patents. Do you honestly think that we would get any good new technology if we had to wait for it to come out of a university? We'd probably all still be using 5micron CPUs.
Under current law, a patent doesn't last forever, about 17 years (or 29 for a drug, I'm not sure what would apply here), I'd be willing to be that in a zero-intellectual property environment we probably wouldn't see the advance for at least that long
I think that its best for us to consider what will be the best course of action for the advancement of science, and the human race as opposed to knee-jerk reactions based on what we believe to be the 'moral' course of action.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Yes the situation you describe could happen, but let me propose another one
The patenting of genetic information is banned. Company X was about to start research on the DNA that does cause Alzheimer's. This research, if done, will result in a potential cure, however there projected costs for the project are $300 million dollars. Now, were they to do this research under your new proposed guidelines they wouldn't make any more money then the companies that didn't spend all that money, so they decide to scrap the idea, and decide to start researching new kinds of tastier corn.
Under the current situation, what you describe is possible, one company for about 17 years will be the only company that will be able to cure Alzheimer's disease. However, I believe this would be preferable to having no cure for Alzheimer's at all don't you?
You're not morally right if you not actually right.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Patenting is supposed to be for original inventions, correct? No prior art is supposed to exist, etc. Well, I've got a few million years of prior art going into this creation I call my body, so I'm not buying the idea of patenting any of it (save my irresistible charm ;) ). Now that it's apparently okay to patent discoveries instead of inventions, I'm claiming fire, how about you?
---sig---
Washington DC, January 13 (AP)
Today, the USPTO announced new guidelines for the genetic qualifications of new application hirings. Under the new guidelines, DNA samples of all prospective USPTO-bureaucrat applicants will be submitted and examined to exclude all Neanderthals and proto-simians. Todd Dickinson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, was quoted as saying: "Internal audits of personnel revealed a disturbing trend: too many employees are of subhuman intelligence. We hope these new guidelines will turn around our beleaguered agency."
I can dream, can't I?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I think this is one of the most important issues of the upcoming years - can company's patent genes that exist in all of us?
Well, they won't be patening the gene itself, however the process by which it is created.
You can't patent a finger, but you can patent a process that will create fingers.
Much like IBM's patents on copper chips. They patented their process, which at the time, was the only process, of producing copper chips. They couldn't patent the use of copper in chips, that would be absurd. Thus people frantically started trying to create copper chips in altered ways.
But heres a thought: Imagine the lawsuits
Man sues company for stealing his arm.
*grin*
IANAGS (I Am Not A Genetic Scientist), but:
The idea of "prior art" in this case may be a little different to what we are used to seeing. True, our genetic structures do "already exist", but the subject of the patent may actually claim something else, such as a method for isolating a gene, modifying it, identifying it, adding it to an organism to produce a certain outcome, and so on.
OF COURSE, the ethical considerations of patenting a genetic sequence are a completely different matter!
Why is the universe here? -Well, where else would it be?
Genes are a natural resource. They are a natural resource for building life. Humans did not invent them, so how can a human have a right to patent it?
Is a company going to actually claim they INVENTED a gene? Are they going to charge parents to have kids because they are violating this companies patent?
The patent laws in this country need to be rewritten entirely if they can get away with this.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
As RMS and others have so often said, the purpose of the patent system is to foster innovation, not to make inventors/discoverers rich. If one gene causes Alzheimer's, how do you claim a patent on that knowledge will induce others to find "alternate" ways of treating it? More importantly, why should it? It's like someone patenting the administration of drugs in pill form to a sick patient. What am I supposed to do if I don't have any pills, stick some leeches on my head and hope my migraine goes away? (Migraines make you want to roll over and die...)
The idiocy, greed, and outright contempt for human decency and welfare disgusts me more than my acid keyboard can relate.
Anyway, it might not be a bad idea to take active steps towards ensuring that something like this cannot happen. Look at the GPL. It guarantees that no rights are taken away from the user by the software it accompanies. So should we, the "users" of our own bodies (and therefore genes) not be denied any rights to them, especially not if such knowledge can raise the quality of life for all people on earth! I say the human genome should be copylefted.
"Honey, it's not working out; I think we should make our relationship open-source."
I must admit first of all that I didn't actually read the article. I looked at it, but then decided that I didn't quit law school for nothing :) Anyways, my feelings are strong on this subject. Flat out, companies should NOT be able to patent our DNA. DNA is should be part of the public domain. God gave it to us as open-source, although no one has yet to reverse engineer the encryption. The human gonome project will have a profound affect on mankind. It is not something that we as a species can afford to allow to be locked away as Corporate Trade Secrets. Some day, the very existence of the species may depend upon this knowledge being as common and easily available as a Gideon Bible.