Posted by
Hemos
on from the just-finish-already dept.
marks writes, "Wired has an article about the Genome Project. The article takes quotes from doctors who want the squabbling over 'property rights' to stop and the project to go forward to benefit patients. "
The last time a gene patenting issue came up, I had an email exchange with Hemos encouraging him to describe the situation more accurately in his postings. Now we get another story and all 13 nonzero comments, as of this writing, have the same misconceptions about gene patenting. So let's try this again:
Genes are not patentable - applications based on a gene sequence are
No, no one can patent blue eyes and charge you a royalty fee
No, you can't just sequence a gene and get patent rights on it. You have to do something with it. The standard of "doing something" needs to be defined better and probably set higher, but the idea that somebody will "own the genome" is false.
What is patentable is identifying the role of a sequence in a disease and charging a royalty for diagnostics or therapies based on that sequence
The fact that the article describes Celera as a "longstanding" competitor to the Genome Project makes me question the quality of the journalism there. Of course, so does the fact that it appeared in Wired.
Maybe we can get an Everything listing to explain these things in genome-related stories, instead of the same misconceptions popping up every time.
I was of the understanding that the human genome project was funded and overseen by the United States Department of Energy? Doesn't this more or less nullify patenting of that information?
How can you patent the mapping of the human genome? That's like patenting the mapping of the North American continent. Perhaps you can copyright a specific map that you've designed and drawn of the continent, but patent it?
I can understand patenting a specific process they may have used, which may be unique, to uncover and map the human genomes, but not the map itself. If they copyrighted the map, though, I would understand. That would also leave it open to other people and organizations to produce their own maps -- just like countless people have produced and released maps of North America. None of them are breaking any patent or copyright law by doing so.
I do not see any right given here beyond copyrighting this information. And doing so would not prevent anyone in the world from creating new technologies and treatments with this information. If they used this information, they would need to pay for it -- just like I would have to pay for acopy of Rand Mcnally's Road Atlas if I wanted to plan a trip across the country. McNally neither owns the country or the right to make maps of the country. But they do own a copyright on the individual map I am using to make my trip.
I would think that anyone who wants to make their own map of the human genome would be welcome to. They could then copyright or GPL their map -- or whatever else they wish to do with it.
I admit that this project brings amazing information and possibilities within our grasp, but we all must also admit that this was no trivial thing. This is a massive project which has taken massive funding and hundreds of man-years (minimally) to accomplish. If this was a private endeavor, it should be that private orgnaization's right to distribute and limit the information however they wish. If, however, the project was largely a public/government undertaking (as has always been my understanding) then this information needs to be freely available without restriction. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
Knees are jerking quickly, I'm sure, but people need to understand that there are some rights here that are of concern, but they are not what you think. Not rights to the human genome itself, but rights to a particular map of the human genome.
Today, maps are copyrighted, and for good reason. If I go out and spend millions surveying an area so that I can print an accurate map, I should be protected by copyright. Another person shouldn't be allowed to xerox my maps and then undercut my price. I deserve to be compensated for my investment. I don't own the information the maps are based on (the locations of cities and such). I own the my particular collection of it. While no own can legally copy my maps, they can go survey the area themselves and produce their own map. I suspect most people would find that eminantly fair. The person who does the work gets the money.
This is really no different. If Cerela creates a map of the human genome, they deserve the right to copyright their database of the human genome. That is only fair. However, they do not deserve the right to copyright the human genome itself. And, AFAIK, they aren't trying to.
In other words, if you want a copy of what Celera did, you should have to pay them. That is only fair. If you don't want to pay them, then you are perfectly free to extract your own DNA and create your own map of the human genome. They can't stop you. You can then sell your database, which you can certainly copyright yourself.
This is no different from geographical maps. No one "owns" the arrangement of geographical features in the world. Lots of mapmakers own their own particular collection of data concerning those features. That's the difference.
Perhaps a better example: If I write a book that describes the Linux kernel in detail, I can certainly copyright that description and charge whatever the hell I want for it. No one, not even Linus, can stop me. However, what I've copyrighted is my description of the Linux kernel, not the Linux kernel itself. This is no different. What Celera is talking about is not copyrighting the human genome, but copyrighting their description of the human genome.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we can get an Everything listing to explain these things in genome-related stories, instead of the same misconceptions popping up every time.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
How can you patent the mapping of the human genome? That's like patenting the mapping of the North American continent. Perhaps you can copyright a specific map that you've designed and drawn of the continent, but patent it?
I can understand patenting a specific process they may have used, which may be unique, to uncover and map the human genomes, but not the map itself. If they copyrighted the map, though, I would understand. That would also leave it open to other people and organizations to produce their own maps -- just like countless people have produced and released maps of North America. None of them are breaking any patent or copyright law by doing so.
I do not see any right given here beyond copyrighting this information. And doing so would not prevent anyone in the world from creating new technologies and treatments with this information. If they used this information, they would need to pay for it -- just like I would have to pay for acopy of Rand Mcnally's Road Atlas if I wanted to plan a trip across the country. McNally neither owns the country or the right to make maps of the country. But they do own a copyright on the individual map I am using to make my trip.
I would think that anyone who wants to make their own map of the human genome would be welcome to. They could then copyright or GPL their map -- or whatever else they wish to do with it.
I admit that this project brings amazing information and possibilities within our grasp, but we all must also admit that this was no trivial thing. This is a massive project which has taken massive funding and hundreds of man-years (minimally) to accomplish. If this was a private endeavor, it should be that private orgnaization's right to distribute and limit the information however they wish. If, however, the project was largely a public/government undertaking (as has always been my understanding) then this information needs to be freely available without restriction.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Today, maps are copyrighted, and for good reason. If I go out and spend millions surveying an area so that I can print an accurate map, I should be protected by copyright. Another person shouldn't be allowed to xerox my maps and then undercut my price. I deserve to be compensated for my investment. I don't own the information the maps are based on (the locations of cities and such). I own the my particular collection of it. While no own can legally copy my maps, they can go survey the area themselves and produce their own map. I suspect most people would find that eminantly fair. The person who does the work gets the money.
This is really no different. If Cerela creates a map of the human genome, they deserve the right to copyright their database of the human genome. That is only fair. However, they do not deserve the right to copyright the human genome itself. And, AFAIK, they aren't trying to.
In other words, if you want a copy of what Celera did, you should have to pay them. That is only fair. If you don't want to pay them, then you are perfectly free to extract your own DNA and create your own map of the human genome. They can't stop you. You can then sell your database, which you can certainly copyright yourself.
This is no different from geographical maps. No one "owns" the arrangement of geographical features in the world. Lots of mapmakers own their own particular collection of data concerning those features. That's the difference.
Perhaps a better example: If I write a book that describes the Linux kernel in detail, I can certainly copyright that description and charge whatever the hell I want for it. No one, not even Linus, can stop me. However, what I've copyrighted is my description of the Linux kernel, not the Linux kernel itself. This is no different. What Celera is talking about is not copyrighting the human genome, but copyrighting their description of the human genome.
The cake is a pie