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."
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
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!
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.
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.
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