Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Patent Torpedoes Research
g8orade writes: "This story says the University of Winsconsin owns patents that may prevent anyone spending that federal money soon. "As they carry out President Bush's plan for government financing of embryonic stem cell studies, federal health officials confront a daunting challenge: U.S. patent 6,200,806, a claim to the human embryonic stem cell." Originally in the NYT, this is a link to the not free account-requiring Charlotte Observer."
I wonder if anyone has bothered to patent oxygen yet...
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Um. Yeah. The Jew lobby? What about the middle-class white male Christian lobby, or any of countless other groups? There are many influential groups. Why would you single out this one group? I agree that per capita Jews probably have more influence in the U.S. than non Jews, but they also work to get themselves educated so they can make such a difference. This sort of anti-semitism goes back to old west towns, where the mayors were often Jewish. Why? Because nobody else knew how to read. Jews elsewhere in history were targeted, because a lot of people owed them money. Why? Because the Christians had laws against collecting interest on a loan. Ok, my point: Jews are people. You're a person. You both have a fundamental right to exist, to progress, and to work to make a difference. Get along. Otherwise, you'll get what you deserve: living in your own bitterness.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
I continue to call the "need" for federal funding.
The stem cells that would be used are covered by a seemingly comprehensive patent by UW.
Univ. of Wis. has given exclusive rights to Geron (a company).
Geron will own anything done with these stem cells, including any "cures" that are discovered.
Geron is (presumably) willing to invest money (and already has) in the research in order to make money from this.
Why do we need federal funding of this? It seems like transferring taxpayer funds to the bottom line of hugebiotechcorp.com
Additionally, scientists working at the university of Wisconsin were reported as saying, later in the week:
"Since we have a patent on how stem cells may be used, we would advise every person living in the United States to either give us $25,000 or kill themselves, as we never explicitly said which babies could use them and which couldn't. Suck our balls!"
Furthermore, I would like to advise every American male that they are currently in violation of my own patent #2,3443,223 - "Ballzack." And, I must demand immediate licensing payment for posession or use of "Ballzack" or anyone found to be in posession of "Ballzack" will have it seized. I will begin grabbing everyone's "Ballzack" upon non-payment beginning on the first of September.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
The patent
by the isolation of ES cell lines from two primate species, the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) and the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta).
-- the patent It looks like he might have been looking to patent embryonic stem cells of those species of primates, not human stem cells.
Do you like German cars?
Did anyone not see that coming?
Ascii artist &
Maybe this is the patent that makes law rethink patents on human body systems.
I am Jack's HTTP Server
How can anyone patent a naturaly occuring cell? This is getting way out of control. Something needs to be done about the patent process NOW.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Say, Mr. Founding Father...what was that again about patents and copyrights providing a BENEFIT to society? Is this what was intended?
Seriously, I think I remember reading that Benjamin Franklin was against the concept of patents because he himself invented a new type of indoor stove (Franklin stove I'm guessing) that was much much safer than the other indoor stoves at the time, which cause deaths from fire and smoke inhilation. A company in England tried to patent the stove's design after it was in use in the colonies and Franklin saw that there could be potentially lifesaving advances that would be unavailable thanks to patents.
Imagine patents on seatbelts and airbags being used restrictively...like you could only get them or use them in Ford vehicles. AIDS vaccines are another key example. It is inexcusable that WIPO and other intellectual property organizations put corporate profit protection above human life.
benefit of society".
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Where did you get the idea that the patent was directed to a naturally occuring cell? It isn't.
It makes deleting comments easier.
In old times, if there had been a story without a #1 comment, or even #2 or #3,
it would have been obvious something was deleted.
With the new system, it will be much easier for people like
michael
to delete what they don't like without anybody noticing.
It makes deleting comments easier. In old times, if there had been a story without a #1 comment, or even #2 or #3, it would have been obvious something was deleted. With the new system, it will be much easier for people like michael to delete what they don't like without anybody noticing.
This is what I'm worried about:
"In turn, the foundation has granted rights to a biotechnology company, Geron Corp. of Menlo Park, Calif., giving that company considerable say over who ultimately profits from stem cell therapies."
Of course you can't believe what other people are posting, no one is going to regulate sexual reproduction etc. The problem would be, who is going to be helped because of the research. Your local HMO and drug company is going to be helped way more than your Parkinsons striken mother.
More? Read on:
"I don't want people to see us as an 800-pound gorilla," Carl Gulbrandsen, the foundation's managing director, said. "We will work very hard with the government to make sure that there is access to this technology and that our patents are not an impediment to researchers."
Then why did you patent it in the first place? More? Read on:
"As far as experts know, the United States is the only nation to have issued a patent on human embryonic stem cells" [from the article]
Of course we are! And we'll be the first to reward a patent [if you read on, you are legally bound not to take my patent idea] for breathing in through your nose and out through your mouth!
And what tells me pro-life groups [Pat Robertson] will try to buy the patent holders out?
Get your Unix fortune now!
The government could 'seize' the patent (through due process of law) in the public interest. Any prior art in this case? Other universities could be ahead, they just haven't said anything for fear of controversy.
Or we could all say that patents suck, unless you patented something.
Research at the Montreal Neurological Institute has revealed that there is an alternative source for stem cells. The source is from the skin of adult rodents, and they believe that this will also be possible with humans. The added advantage is that these stem cells would not be rejected when used in building organs for replacement.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
So why would anyone keep using embryonic stem cells?
Imagine patents on seatbelts and airbags being used restrictively...like you could only get them or use them in Ford vehicles.
Imagine that, indeed. As a matter of fact, there are a few gazillion patents covering every aspect of the field, and some of those patents dating back decades.
AIDS vaccines are another key example. It is inexcusable that WIPO and other intellectual property organizations put corporate profit protection above human life.
Nonsense. Patents make it possible for corporations to create life-saving technology and saves lives. Pharmaceutical companies raise capital from the marketplace for research and development and regulatory testing, not because shareholders are happy to volunteer funds for R&D, but because they hope the company will make a profit. If the company could not make a profit, the R&D and development wouldn't get done, and the products would be brought to market. If the company didn't have patents, competitors would simply free-ride on the R&D and compete with them using their own work. No profits, no product, no life saving drugs.
Life saving drugs, such as tetracycline and a host of antibiotics, leukemia fighting drugs, and lifestyle preserving drugs such as Prozac and many others are the product of, not deterred by, the patent system.
Here's a link to another story in the Capital Times (in Madison, Wisconsin). It puts more emphasis on interviews with researchers at the WARF. They claim that they are being very responsible with a patent, far more so than a private corporation would be if it owned the patent.
Unfortunately, the practice of licensing out research to private corporations has become common practice at the University of Wisconsin and other big research universities. Grad students sometimes do the work on research where the company gets to keep all IP gained from the research.
The problem is that the state keeps cutting our funds every year, so the university constantly has to search for new sources of funding. The administration sees private companies as a source for this research money. However, the gain from private grants, etc., is often offset by the expenses the UW incurs by building new facilities for this corporate-owned research. We still end up footing huge bills, but then the public doesn't own the result.
The researchers do have a point: at least a university research institution owns this patent, and they are concerned with the benefits of research, not profiteering. Many patents from university research now go to corporations. For example, earlier this year some UW researchers were given "free" access to Third Wave Technologies' proprietary Invader OS in exchange for promising Third Wave the right to develop any discoveries, which I assume means pursuing patents based on the UW researchers' work.
Man, the last time I did some stem cell research, I was flying for hours! whooo hooo! those stems were potent! and I couldn't stop laughing so much my stomach hurt for DAYS!!!!
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
I'm thinking that among other things such as software, biological stuff like DNA and stem cells shouldn't be "patentable."
In the case of biological stuff, it can clearly be shown that the patent applicant didn't actually INVENT the stuff!! For crying out loud! Maybe I should patent "apples" or "bananas!" I didn't invent them but are they patented? Probably not... so I guess I should be the first and then I'll hold Del Monte and Chiquita hostage until they pay my royalties.
This patent crap is getting out of hand! I'm waiting for the day, and I think the day is getting too close too fast, when some company owns my left arm or something simply because I recieved some sort of graft from THEIR stem cells. Like, if I wanted to get a tattoo, I'd have to clear it through the board of directors for approval or something stupid like that. Who the hell is running the patent offices? It's getting ridiculous!
Upon birth, every infant will now be immediately imprisoned for violating the stem cell patent.
*sigh* Granting patents for everything... *sigh*
I can't help feeling depressed everytime I read a patent story on /. nowadays...
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
Perhaps this will finally get large numbers of people to understand how damaging the current patent system can be. (And it won't stop the research, but it will make people think.)
Let's not get confused here. Have a patent on concept X does not give me the right to stop all research on related topics X1 and X2. It prevents you from developing X, calling it your own, and selling it. The Thomas Edison foundation holds a patent on the light bulb, but that doesn't mean I cannot research LEDs, or new types of light bulbs.
Doesn't prior art on this go back, oh, about 300 million years or so?
in the NYT, this is a link to the not free account-requiring Charlotte Observer.
I find it extremely ironic that the people who complain about signing up for accounts at the NYT still have accounts here at Slashdot. I mean, what's the damn difference? I could understand this statement coming from an Anonymous poster... The uneducated hypocritical Slashdot reader rears its ugly head again. Mod me down or flame me all you like, but you know its true.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
when issues like this come up, and everyone here is pretty much agast at some stupid patent or law, what do we do? I mean other than whine and moan here about it. How many of you write an email to president@whitehouse.gov? how many take an ounce of effort and figure out the email of your congressman or house of represenataive member and then email them? I wont mention actually writing a real letter and mailing it, as most everyone here is either too lazy or cheap to do such a thing. but instead of whining how about actually being a member of society? we as a collective can and do crash servers on a regular basis. but do we take one bit of effort to write a letter that sounds like it was writen by someone that actually passed 10th grade and send it to someone who does have the power to change the law/problem? no way.
I dare you, I dare all of you. to write an email to the president and vice president, voicing your concern that his important decision is being controlled by some un-american legislators in a wisconsin college. And you as a voting american citizen (or as a forign interested party) would like to know what he is going to do about it.
Dont use L33t or swear every 3 words like an illiterate turd.
I'll bet that none of you have the guts or even brain power to do it. (Yes this last line is an intentional troll... as it seems that someone has to slap the slashdot collective in the face to get it's attention)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Coming up next: The epic case of the University of Wisconsin v. Nature
After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
Wisconsin... now why does that ring a bell... oh yes, that's where Thommy Tompson - the strongly pro-life, yet strangely pro-stem-cell research Secretary of Health and Human Services, used to be governor. Surely it's not about the money?
They've patented their line of stem cells (which seems quite odd in an of itself since they didn't actually invent them), and the method by which they obtained them. The patent can be viewed online at uspto.gov. Presumably there's nothing to prevent someone else from developing a line (and, in fact, if there are 60+ lines, this surely has happened) using a different process.
As a matter of fact, there are a few gazillion patents
Please read what I said. I did not say "imagine if there were patents" because I know there are patents on practically every engineering advance. I said what if they were used restrictively. What if Ford developed seatbelts, Honda came up with safety glass, and Volvo invented air bags? Well then you, dear consumer, would have the joy of choosing whether you died in a crash from being thrown from your vehicle, bleeding to death from severe lacerations, or internal bleeding from impacting the steering column.
Instead we have different makes of cars that have all three...moreso there are even governmental laws that say you MUST have these things to sell a car in the United States. Now, if the cost of licensing these patents were prohibitive, I highly doubt we would have these situations. While I'm not sure of the exact mechanism, I'm sure there are some trade organizations who take responsability for cross-licensing and pooling patents much like computer manufacturers do.
Patents make it possible for corporations to create life-saving technology
Now let me address this...I don't think companies should be asked to eat the cost of R&D even though in an ideal world, life-saving advances would be funded by charities for the sole purpose of ending a problem and not making money. But this is not an ideal world so I can accept that investors are getting together to fund research into some drug that will provided a benefit, perhaps save lives.
But here is where the little simple model you outline breaks down...the patent system does not draw a distinction between someone who invents a new widgit that, while making people happy, is essentially a luxurty and someone who invents a new widgit that saved lives. How much should someone be allowed to profit off the second situation?
Pharmaceutical companies don't just recover their R&D costs. They don't just double their initial investment. They invest millions and make billions. The 17-year or whatever lifespan of a patent is a money-printing machine when it comes to things people MUST (not just would like) to purchase.
In the extreme case, a company could find a cure for cancer. Auction one dose of the drug per month to the highest bidder. What would be the result? Cancer-ridden billionaires would live into their 90s while kids get shuttled off to orphanages because their hard workin' mama got breast cancer at age 30. Could anyone possibly argue that this situation is any better than not having that cure in the first place?
As another example...I recently visited my grandparents and found them lying in a room with the shades drawn, damn washcloths on their foreheads with a fan blowing over a pan of water to form some sort of evaporative cooler. They were afraid if they used the air conditioning they wouldn't be able to afford their power bills. So they sat there in 90-degree heat with 85% humidity. Why? So a power producer in the midwest can make take a 500% profit increase to its giddy shareholders.
The power crisis in California was caused by moron buerocrats who did what the lobbiest told them. Now we have a big mess and I understand that we are going to have to take responability for it. But in the meantime should anyone be allowed to profit from misery?
Maybe the fault lies in our corporate system for rewarding financial gain at all costs. Maybe the fault lies in the fact that when we put on the shareholders mask we gets to throw away our moral compass and sue our board if they don't move in for the kill. Regardless, it is going to have to change if things keep going like this.
There are legislators in California that want to see to it that energy companies get capped at 200% profit and are forced to return anything above that. Likewise, shouldn't pharamaceutical companies have a similar cap?
If the goal of the patent is to promote development by securing financial gain...then why don't we have a patent system based not on time (which is completely arbitrary) but on finances? As soon as you have made 200% return on your investment then society gets to benefit as well. I'm not saying this needs to be done for every patent, but there should definitely be some consideration given to patents that can affect the health of a society.
There's a big difference between some fat cat sitting on a pile of money because he invented the next Cabbage Patch/Tickle Me Elmo/Kirby and a fat cat sitting on a pile of money while people starve because poor farmers can only afford to buy a single generation of patented non-reproducing seeds.
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
The WARF has a royalty distribution scheme that pays the inventor a cut, the Graduate School a cut, and the department a cut. The WARF has had some pretty big patents before - adding Vitamin D to Milk was the WARF's first patent, and made the University a lot of money. Another big one is Warfarin, which is a well-known rat poison (I've always enjoyed the fact that a building full of lawyers has a rat poison named after it)
Good thing there are Canadian researchers to help you out of these moral dilemas: http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.H TMLTemplate?tf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.ht ml&cf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.cfg&configF ileLoc=tgam/config&encoded_keywords=stem+cell&opti on=&start_row=1¤t_row=1&start_row_offset1=&n um_rows=1&search_results_start=1
Even if sometimes an investment can return tenfold, the businesses where that occurs are ones that often have 100% loss from investments.
A company that creates the cure for cancer (for example) has already made massive R&D in several areas, and have to cover losses where research doesn't lead to a profitable product.
If such a situation arises where a company has something it's not willing to license or sell but is important for the general healthcare, the governments will act.
However, remember that if medicine is sold at 1% of the usual price to the poorest countries, rich people will try to smuggle the medicine back because it'd still be only a fraction of the price in western countries, so a balance has to be struck so that the poor countries get it for a price that wouldn't actually even cover the R&D while the price of R&D is taken from the rich countries.
One of the most serious problems we have today with the patent office is this: the allowing of patenting of discoveries. Discoveries are not inventions, no one invented the stem cell, they simply found it. This is the same mindset that allows companies to patent parts of the human genetic code. I believe we have bigger issues to worry about with the patent office than software.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Sorry, dude!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
That's about enough patent BULLSHIT. I can't stand reading about all these new patents that make NO SENSE. How can you patent a human stem cell? Are you god? Didn't think so.
I'm not sure what the future holds in store for us all, but with crazy shit like this, I'm sure its going to get interesting.
You're nothing; like me.
The only problem with this so far is that while the skin stem cells do differentiate into multiple types of cells, so far they haven't been able to get quite the range that you can with embryonic stem cells. It's quite possible that they may be able to differentiate them into more cells as they continue work along these lines. They have, however, ended up with some of the most important ones for research.
My question is... if they don't patent it, how long will it be until someone else does? There's lots of money in stem cell research. That's good in some respects (more research is good!) and bad in others (more money to hire patent lawyers!).
~ Leilah
1. Patenting mechanical and electronic devices may make sense - those things are relatively simple, and it is relatively doable to a new gadget is actually new. Also there tends to be fewer of them, so the job of comparing things isn't quite as big. But software patents and gene patents will come roaring like a tsunami, and each new case is incomprehensibly complicated. They will die from information overload.
2. This kind of patenting is unfair and unreasonable etc etc. Need I elaborate? I think every thinking person (except for those who have money invested in such patents) feels this. This is not the right way to protect the investments.
I think we (America and un-America
UW Stem Cell Press Kit http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/ UW Waisman Center Stem Cell Research Program http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/scrp/ UW WARF Stem Cell licensing page http://www.wisc.edu/warf.boi/p00103us.html
So if chemo knocks out all my remaining stem cells I have a US patent to blame for not being able to be treated effectively (I think I'll have to find a compatible adult donor). Does this help anyone (other than the patent holder?)
OK, so the original idea of patents is great, and if someone invented a great new novel machine to solve XYZ medical problem then a patent may be due, but this one sounds to be very broad, as well as covering something natural.
Looks like I won't have to be donating $$ to my alma mater anytime soon. :)
Let's Go Red!
The only thing in a patent that holds force of law is the list of claims. I'll excerpt here:
In other words, the only practical way to maintain a stem cell line. This method of getting at the stem cells looks pretty obvious to anyone who has ever studied the field.I guess this patent will focus U.S. researchers on getting stem cells from other places.
Will I retire or break 10K?
In old times, if there had been a story without a #1 comment, or even #2 or #3, it would have been obvious something was deleted.
Slashdot very rarely deletes comments; it rarely has to. Most of the time what you see as deletion is really just moderation down to -1; please read the FAQ. The only time Slashdot deletes comments is when Score:-1 is not acceptable, such as when a copyright owner sends Slashdot's copyright agent a takedown notice.
Will I retire or break 10K?
There's a lot more research being done on non-embryonic stem cells than the recent McGill announcement. See this overview of current research by Michael Fumento, writing in the National Post.
Am I the only one that thinks that just maybe, God
has prior art on this one?
Failing that, Mother nature should file a prior art claim and maybe even my ancestors should file a claim. After all, they were all spawning/creating stem cells before the US patent system was invented.
HTF can you patent something that's naturally occuring? If we can do that, I'm gonna patent
the mitosis process and charge everyone a penny anytime one of their cells infringes on my patent.
~~Cannis
Seems like there is a bunch of infighting going on
- - -
Radio Free Nation
is a general news site based on Slash Code
"If You have a story, We have a soapbox"
- - -
Check out the Vinny the Vampire Comic Strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
It strips long .com addresses down to the SLD and TLD. So what would it make of Amazon's UK operations?
In a particularly advantageous embodiment, the cells of the preparation are human embryonic stem cells, have normal karyotypes, and continue to proliferate in an undifferentiated state after continuous culture for eleven months.
They make it explicitly clear that the patent applies to human embryonic stem cells as well as those of the other primates. The section you quote refers to the "present invention."
See, you need to invent something before you can patent it. They claim to have invented culturing primate embryonic stem cells (and they may well have been the first to do it), and they patented the general application to all primates, including humans.
Let's look at the claims, the part of the patent that defines the legal rights. The first claim is...
1. A purified preparation of pluripotent human embryonic stem cells which (i) will proliferate in an in vitro culture for over one year, (ii) maintains a karyotype in which the chromosomes are euploid and not altered through prolonged culture, (iii) maintains the potential to differentiate to derivatives of endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm tissues throughout the culture, and (iv) is inhibited from differentiation when cultured on a fibroblast feeder layer.
You can read the patent to find out what the terms mean. If a stem cell line does not have all of the features above, it doesn't infringe. A short-lived stem cell line might have been a practical way around this patent before President Bush restricted federal funding for research involved with making more stem cell lines.
Last I heard, the only "baby" jews eat, is your girlfriend. She's tired of your premature ejaculation and two inch penis, and loves getting circumsized cocks slammed into her cunt. It really bothers you that your balls are so shriveled, but please don't take it out on the slashdot readers.
From my own Web pages Blue Pill vs. Red Pill
....USE, ....!
The Nature of a Patent is "The Right To EXCLUDE"
Interpretations of the Patent statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter
which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas
are not patentable subject matter.
TWO VIEWS:
The BLUE PILL (a part)"Protection of industrial property is not an end in itself: it is a means to encourage
reative activity, industrialization, investment and honest trade. All this is designed to contribute to more
safety and comfort, less poverty and more beauty, in the lives of men.
The RED PILL (the whole) WHO WE ARE AND HOW WE WORK IS NOT TO BE KEPT FROM US,
NOT TO BE HIDDEN FROM OUR ABILITY TO PERSONALLY USE! AND CERTAINLY NOT
SOMETHING TO CHARGE US FOR THE RIGHT TO
I haave something on the order of 50 million pieces of evidence, and I encourage others to submit theirs, too. There is a high likelyhood that stem cells can be found in my fat tissue, skin, heart, brain tissue, and at various other places throughout my body. Since circumstances cleary show that I must have had these for nearly three decades, I don't see how this patent is valid. As a matter of fact, if I had had the foresight to patent them myself, back in '74, my patent would have already expired.
I've spent a great deal of my life developing and growing these stem cells, often at great nutritional cost to myself, and I would be apalled if the USPTO granted exclusive rights to some snotty little thief who thinks that they can just steal it out from under me.
What happens to a patent when it's holder and all his heirs die in a bizarre accident?
2001-08-17 15:37:07 Stem Cells are Patented (articles,news) (rejected)
Do the Slashdot editors ever talk to each other or coordinate what they are doing in any way? I try to submit stories regularly, but they always get rejected. I don't know why I bother.
This crosses another threshold in the patenting of living things. Up to now, patents have been on specific, identifiable species, cell lines, DNA sequences, or organisms, and even that has met with considerable resistance. But this patent is on any cell line that has desirable properties, whether found by these researchers or by anybody else. Another analogy is that if you discover the first apple tree, you claim a patent on any tree bearing sweet fruit.
I think society needs to think carefully about whether these kinds of patents are in the public interest. It might be defensible to let the university make claims on specific cell lines and on methods for creating those cell lines (and even that seems dubious to me), but I see no basis in patent law for the more general claims to all primate stem cell lines. If you do, maybe you can explain how you think this is justified by patent law and specifically how society benefits from such patents.
Please read what I said. I did not say "imagine if there were patents" because I know there are patents on practically every engineering advance. I said what if they were used restrictively. What if Ford developed seatbelts, Honda came up with safety glass, and Volvo invented air bags?
That's what I'm trying to tell you. You seem to be suggesting that this isn't so. You are mistaken, for that pretty much describes the status quo. Really, you should check out the U.S. patent database on patents issued to the big three for automotive safety. Yet the parade of horribles never happened.
Why doesn't Ford keep an exclusive on seminal safety technology? How come not only one company has safety braking? Why don't more companies use their patents to maintain monopoly protection, rather than license them to third parties, indeed even their competitors?
Its the economy, stupid. The bottom line is, you need a patent to give you almost complete ownership of a market, not a market niche, before it is profitable to use it solely for monopoly purposes. And you need that market to have no real competitive alternatives, something like Xerox and Polaroid had for a brief time. Otherwise, there are almost ALWAYS far more profitable uses that can be made of a patent: royalty generation, cross-licensing to avoid further R&D and focusing on your core competencies to compete in a marketplace. Even in aerospace and other high-tech businesses, cross-marketing and licensing is the norm.
Monopoly rents are hard to collect. For the most time, patents act quite efficiently, in the economic sense, to assure that the marketplace gets the goods at a credible price.
Pharmaceutical companies don't just recover their R&D costs. They don't just double their initial investment. They invest millions and make billions. The 17-year or whatever lifespan of a patent is a money-printing machine when it comes to things people MUST (not just would like) to purchase.
Hmmm.. 10,000% profits, huh? I better get myself some more Pharm stocks. I had no idea. Let me check some of the books.
No, it doesn't quite work out at the end of the day. No doubt, the last few years of the Prozac patent sees millions a day at virtually no marginal cost. How come their balance sheet doesn't show that they are "printing money."
Could it be that maybe they are losing some money elsewhere? For every Prozac and Viagra, there's precisely a whole bunch of other projects that never pan out at all, and never recoup the millions invested there. A buncha millions here, a buncha millions there, and pretty soon you are talking real money.
Ultimately, Pharm is a risky business when viewed on a project by project basis. And younger companies without huge portfolios capable of generating a core product or two before the money runs out disappear every day -- just like the dot coms.
Now, back to my point. These companies are making good money, at least those that survived, and when viewing their most profitable projects without comparing the fiascos. Right. How about those that didn't?
More important, what if there was no chance for them to make those profits? No profits, no investments, no investments, no drugs. Instead of grandparents who couldn't afford the drugs, nobody at all could afford the drugs, for no one can buy what doesn't exist.
Wisconsin is not spelled Winsconsin thank you very much. Sheesh.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If there's a valid patent to be granted, it belongs to Mother Nature.
For all those out there who think they know the answer... in SCIENCE we try to study all paths... and then choose which is better, I mean take this approch with operating systems... UNIX does more than Linux does and doesn't have any odd copyright that I don't exacly understand... why study fiber optics copper works just fine for me! why try to create lithium-ion batteries again dems good ol batteries still work for me... please don't disregard this path because there is another... first try both paths then continue along the most benifical... I am religious... but I am not so nieve as to believe that a blastisis is a human life.
Remove *your pants* to send me email.
Slashdot doesn't require registration to read *any* article, but NYT's articles almost always need registration. There is a difference, you know...
Maybe you should try thinking about the issue first...
Christians preists are responsable for more murders than Hitler.
All this patenting of pre-existing things like genes and cells reminds me vaguely of something I read about the early Catholic Church: supposedly lot of gods from other religions, like Bacchus and Jupiter were canonized as saints.
If the vegetarian cannibalist movement had survived more than one generation, they would have killed a lot more people than that.
I think the point is quite clear. That racism has no place in a world that wishes to have move forward and find prosperity, peace, and happiness.
Re: "there's precisely a whole bunch..."
I think that wins my new award for least scientific statement that is still true.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
"I'm not sure of the exact mechanism..."
That's near the root of your problem. Understanding it requires a basic acceptance of how monetary things are done in grayscale, not black and white. How everyone can have better things and ever-more scientists can get paid.
Figure this out (another responder tries to explain) and you'll understand the worthlessness of the rest of your post.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Patent on X grants you the right to exclude anyone else from using X, including process XYZ, process Y that only works after preparing the surface with process X, or assembly A which uses part X as a widget.
It does NOT prevent someone else from patenting Y or XYZ. If you patent X and they patent Y, y'all better get along (or find a monetary way to get along) because neither of you can do process XYZ without the other.
Patents do NOT grant you the right to _do_ something, which is why you can get a patent on assembly A requiring widget X, even if you don't have the widget X patent and someone else does. Neither of you can use assembly A unless you cross-license.
Probably you're just a troll.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
The CBC is reportingh in this story that Canadian researchers have managed to extract stem cells from the skin of both mice and humans. This promises to not only render the patent on fetal stem cell research moot but also opens the door to research uncomplicated by religion and ethical debate.
Especially in the drug industry without patents there would be no new and good drugs. These things take a LOT of money to develop and and by the way your government tacks on like 30% of the cost before taxes in the way of F.D.A
...All you preach is oh all companies are bad .... I wanna live in a communist country ...BAH either put out or shutup and leave American cause this country is the greatest capitalist country in the world if you don't like it leave
Not to mention the fact that they are political forced to give away millions of dollars, but can't take credit.
Some of you folks just don't get it
Forgive me if someone has already pointed this out, I must have missed it, but even if this patent holds in the US (which I doubt, and hope it doesn't, as I'm one of those who believes you should only be able to patent your own creations, and I don't think those scientists were around when stem cells were created (if they were, I think we'd have more important things to discuss than patent regulations!)) Anyway, even if the patent does hold for the US, what's to stop other countries from ignoring the patent? This has been brewing for a while, but Brazil has decided to go through on its threat to ignore a Swiss patent on AIDS medication, and produce it itself (see here). This just proves my point, a patent is, in truth, nothing more than something someone wrote down in a book (or in a computer file somewhere). It's not a physical block to anyone who, with more scientic sense than respect for a piece of paper, decides to use it. Especially in areas of questionable jurisdiction. So, if the patent holds, we might find a good portion of our scientists heading south of the border.
Never express yourself more clearly than you think ~Neils Bohr