Slashdot Mirror
New Technique Makes Most Gene Patents Irrelevant
Billy the Mountain writes "This Scientific American article, Legal Circumvention, describes a technique for circumventing gene patents whereby living cells are coaxed into expressing genes, especially those genes currently held under patents. Although, would-be exploiters of genes are prevented by patent restrictions from constructing a particular sequence and replicating it, patent law cannot be enforced in instances where an existing cell or organism is caused to express any of these patented genes and proteins."
Yeah, that shows there's a big problem with our country's ethos...
"Hey, isn't that auburn hair? My company patented that! You owe us $500,000 or else you need to cut off that hair."
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
And now science routes around damage too.
So, if I make a computer design a part using what it is supposed to do (push levers, bend things, twist things, etc.), under a set of parameters (size, material, etc.) and feed that into a CNC mill and out came a patented part, would that be okay?
I think not...
-twb
Has Sangamo BioSciences patented their zinc finger protein transcription method?
How the heck can you pantent a gene. God the USPO is out of control.
Can someone explain this to me please.
Thanks,
Mike
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
But the changes required to avoid the patents, in my opinion, are likely to be more expensive than licensing the patent itself. It is very difficult to find a gene product that can be used without cellular purification....
-Sean
Is it just me or does anyone see this evolving into a Copy Protection cat-and-mouse game? For example: Company A creates sequence, somehow circumvents this way of showing the sequence, then releases it, only to have Company B circumvent their circumvention, etc etc etc. Sorta like the Lotus 123 Copy protection game back in the late 80s(?)
Or worse, Company A not release their cure for cancer until they have found a way of having it not be undone by this technique?
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Don't worry, I'm sure 'big pharm' will have E. coli and friends all classified as circumvention devices. Better start scraping that bacteria out of your stomach, lest Pfizer come knocking on the door...
So much time is wasted trying to duplicate the efforts of others or finding ways to subvert others' research.
Wouldn't it make more sense to license the technology (yes, even genetic enhancements) and build upon it rather than trying to redo it from scratch?
I have been pwned because my
This kind of technique, clever as it is, will most certainly stifle innovation in the biotech industry as companies and investors will choose not to fund promising research because they will understand, more clearly than ever now in an era of DeCSS and Kazaa Lite, that any yahoo using this technique will be able to reverse-engineer a carefully developed gene sequence simply and cheaply.
It's a good thing I don't have Parkinson's disease, or another serious illness that genomic therapy might be able to solve, given a few more years and the environment of innovation necessary to promote such promising research. Investors will simply take their money elsewhere, and the great cures of the twenty-first century will go unfound. By the time I'm old enough to need such therapy (I'm only 41) I suspect this unwise loophole will have been closed.
Pay the fuck up!
- Important information of genes/genetics are put to good use by being shared with geneologists around the world.
- More time can be spent on producing cures for critical deseases instead of patenting genes that you found.
- What if someone found a cure for genetically-linked desease, but can't make the formulae public, because the genes that need to be altered is patented to some other guy?
Personally I think that scientists should put the needs of mankind first before succumbing to the influence of the almighty buck.Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Where gene patents are still most relevant is where they are most needed, over sequences not occuring in nature. If I design a gene, and then you use these techniques to circumvent my patent, you still must have my patented gene in your system somewhere. But if the gene is naturally occuring, then a patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place (non-novel/obvious). So this merely makes gene patents fall more in line with traditional patents. Not bad, but not totally destructive of the system either.
"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
That's a great idea. I think I'll GPL myself. No one in the world can ever be just like me. Only me. Me. Me! Me! Me! Okay, kind of scary.
As the Internet community has tried to tell people for years, our current ideas of Intellectual Property are dead. Copyright, patents and other monopolizing influences on pure information have no reason to exist and the Internet has finally given us the means to destroy these useless ideas. I'm not against credit for one's work; the GPL and other such licenses can protect that if people are responsible in their use of open-sourced information. The difference is that in the Information Age, if you're going to come up with ideas for the good of society, you'll have to do it solely for that reason. Is that so wrong? Would it be wrong to teach people that to do the right thing and do things that are positive for society is it's own reward in the recognition one receives? Must we promise lordly lifestyles to those who create good things? Not really. Imagine this; a world where people develop cancer medications that can be distributed at low cost because they want to cure cancer, not because they want to make money. A world where scientists work together to solve problems, instead of working separately to make money. Let's think about that. The only problem is corporations (who give us more reasons not to trust them every day) want to protect the old system, because it grants them power. The thing they don't realize is that they've already lost. The old world is dying a slow and painful death; let's do the responsible thing and euthanize it.
There's no way that some company can tell you that you posess a set of genes that has been patented.
Well, there's a way, but the chances of that happening are about 1 in 700 million. So relax.
And, in the extremely rare case that you're found to posess a patented gene as part of your genetic makeup, there's nothing the companies can do about it. They can't force your death, as they would be responsible for homicide, and they can't force you to pay either, because you're the rightful owner of those genes. You were born with them.
It's more: Whichever's the company that's holding down a copy of your genes and claiming it as theirs could be getting in a lot of trouble for stealing your genetic code and claiming it theirs. I say go sue them...
....well, I guess that's why the article's titled "legal circumvention: new technique makes most patents irrelevant". I smell something burning... is that my Karma going up in smoke? (oops)
can one patent a technique for making other patents irrelevant?
i would like to explain the case "amgen vs. tkt" which is alluded to in the article.
basically, amgen has composition of matters patent on epo, both the sequence (which causes it's production in bacteria) and the protein (which is the stuff actually injected into the patient).
tkt caused cells to produce epo w/o using the epo sequence to coerce bacteria into producing it -- instead they coerced cells into producing it, without ever introducing the epo sequence into those cells. they then harvested the epo protein and (wanted to) sell it for serious $$$.
the court found that tkt did not violate amgen's sequence patent but did violate amgen's patent on the protein. hence, tkt did not have a product.
now, if tkt or anybody else came up with a compound which increases the endogenous production of epo, it's widely believed that neither the sequence patent or the protein patent would be infringed.
the difference is that such an "endogenous upregulator" would never require collecting and administering the protein (which has a composition of matter patent associated with it).
but this is no big deal. it's been known for some time. my company focuses on drugs that regulate gene expression. nonetheless, nobody has ever found such a magic epo upregulator, and with $2b in sales, you can bet people are trying.
OK.. when science is having to develop new methods which have absolutely no practical value other than to dodge patent laws, you know the patent law is completely unjust. Patent as a concept is granted to promote science and facilitate its advancement. When science is instead treating the law as an obstacle and exerting effort on finding ways to go around it-- that is to say, when for task A which has been patented it is easier to find a way to circumvent the patent law than it is to design an alternate, non-patent-covered version of task A-- then that patent law is not serving its purpose, is being a detriment to science, and is probably unconstitutional.
One of the neatest features of patent law is that it encourages lots of experimentation; if you need to do something, and there is a patented way to do this thing, and you can't afford to license the patent or the patent owner refuses to license it, this isn't that much of a problem; you just find an alternate way to do the thing, enlightened by your knowledge of how the current patent holders do it, and then patent your version. Today's overly broad patents prevent this; rather than creating cycles where technologies in a given industry iteratively improve as each company innovates new things and patents them (and the other companies look at the public details of the patent filing and try to find better ways of doing the same innovation) today's patents create dead ends; places where technology may no longer advance except with the permission of a certain company.
Because the main problem with the unjust patents of today-- software patents, business model patents, gene patents-- is that they cover a goal, not a methodology. Indeed, these patents are not just overly broad, they miss the point entirely; they cover concepts, while patent law was only ever intended to cover implementations of concepts.
Just a thought.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
we have the DMCA now... clearly the technique is a Digital copy protection circumvention method.
In general, biotechnology companies are flush with cash. So, you come to them and ask "can we license your patent for a gene?"
Well, they have no friggin' idea what that license is worth. If they need money, they say "yes." If they're flush with venture capital, and even in this downturn, they are, they just say "no." If you come back with a ridiculous offer, they'd take it anyway, but they just won't deal for a reasonable price because, to them, it's a poor gamble. They've no reason to sell these things, and they know they've got value - because you want 'em. Alternatively, they may be using that gene patent to maintain a monopoly on some drug or treatment. No way they're going to license it to you (for a reasonable amount, once again) so that you can compete with them.
There was a plan by a colleague over at Cornell to do something pro-social with genetic engineering - I think it involved genetically engineering some tropical fruit (Mangos?) to retard spoilage. Whatever it was, it solved an economic problem for poor farmers on Pacific islands. Anyway, they had a way to do it but it involved a bunch of patented genes and processes. Funny thing was, these patents were sitting idle, unused by their owners. However, the owners of these patents wouldn't sell licenses because they had no idea of the value of what they were giving out. So, when in doubt, they refused.
A lot of these gene patenting outfits are (largely failed, because they've patented genes no one really wants) extortion rings. They're actually easier to deal with, since their gene patents are often legally weak, and they don't want to price themselves out of the market.
Discussing this technology itself - this isn't new. We new about zinc finger proteins when I took freshman biology, that would have been seven years ago.
Sangamo BioSciences in Richmond, Calif., has made about a fourth of them to bypass patent restrictions by using its "zinc finger protein" transcription factors, proteins that turn genes on and off.
The implication of this sentence is that zinc finger proteins are an innovation developed or discovered by Sangamo. This is not the case.
Athersys didn't develop their technique, either (not implied by the article,) although I've only heard of it used in the past to turn random genes OFF.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
It's under appeal, but doesn't look good. The GM Canola apparently spreads like a weed and is growing everywhere. And once it hits your property, Monsanto claims the right to rip up your crop if you don't pay them for a patent license. The best general overview I've seen is the 169k pdf file linked from here.
If the Scientific American article is correct, it looks like US patent law is (for once) less screwed up than at least part of the rest of the world's.
No doubt this violates the DMCA. Keep dreaming, these loopholes will either be patched, or the fascist DMCA will be repealed.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I don't see how it is better for ANYONE except big business when gene sequences are patented. Aren't these things supposed to help the human race by fighting disease and such?? I see patenting this stuff as hindrance to EVERYONE except those who are going to make money. The only relevant point the law makers should be looking at is that the human race is better off not patenting living matter. Right?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
....And I've got the "prior art" to proove it! I was using these genes for years before anyone knew what they did. And I've sold myself for money too, as much as I could...
..
There is simply no legitimate reason why anyone should be granted a patent on a gene....perhaps they COULD get a patent on a particular piece of equipment, for the purpose of making a particular set of proteins. That's a legit patent, you know,
"equipment/process for doing something novel" and "for the advancement of the usfull arts" kinda stuff...either way, it's NOT for something that's either an idea or just simply a fact of nature.
Yeah, I've heard the drug companies arguments too..."we spent sooooo much money finding out what this gene does...", blah..blah...blah...it's still bullshit unless you found some cool way of making "special protein sequence #27(tm)." You cannot get a patent for simply proving it's existance and/function in nature. That's the patent rule..
I say these other "bio-pirate" companies should absolutely PLUNDER these stupid "patent holders"...
...You can't own the ideas in this conceptual land rush, you just gotta fill you brain up fast as you can and stay on your feet....
If I genetically engineer (or even just train) birds to sing copyrighted songs, can I avoid paying a royalty to the copyright holder?
Tell that to the RIAA!
Great Linux Site
they're going to leave that loophole open right? The trillion dollar pharmaceutical is going to leave that patent hole wide open eh?
My black ass.
Patents are stupid!!! Copyright sucks!!! Trademarks are crap!!! Ban intellectual property!!! Screw the establishment!!!
Patent pending. Copyright (c) 2002, rice_burners_suck. All rights reserved. "Patents are stupid!!! Copyright sucks!!! Trademarks are crap!!! Ban intellectual property!!! Screw the establishment!!!" is a registered trademark of rice_burners_suck. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. This flamebait is protected by U.S. copyright law and international treaty. Do not make illegal copies of this flamebait. All violations are punishable by death per subparagraph 3,939,112 of DMCA XP 2004.So the patent system encourages innovation after all! These guys have come up with an innovation that makes certain patents irrelevant!
Now if only someone could do the same for software patents, and release it under the GPL.
Edith Keeler Must Die
The people at Levi Strauss must be really pissed that somebody found a way around their gene patents...
oh wait....
I hope you enjoy the latest version of my long running tirade.
Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that a method of extracting or purifying a gene consists of an invention, worthy of patent, in and of itself. Let us identify two things: 1. The goal it accomplishes, 2. the unique advances made to achieve that goal. Keep this in mind as I raise the next point.
Now, let us consider two microprocessor designs, each of which is patented seperately; an Intel 8286 and a Motorola 68020, say. Let us identify two things: 1. The goal each of these devices accomplishes (which are, I will assume from here on out, the same,) and 2. the unique advances each devices incorporates in an effort to achieve that goal.
So, Intel has patented an arrangement of transistors and other components intended to do digital computations; it generates less heat per fetch-execute cycle than its predecessor the 8186(I don't actually know that - I'm just assuming). Motorola then comes along and patents another microprocessor design which is totally different, but it, too, generates less heat per cycle than it's predecessor (the 68010, if I remember correctly). Has Motorola violated Intel's patent on processors that generate less heat? Has AMD violated Intel's patent on processors that are fast? Cheap to manufacture? No; in order to violate Intel's patent you need to replicate (at the very least) some identifiable element of their unique design.
Back to genes. Amgen has patented a means of achieving a desired end - the purification of some protein. If I come along and achieve the same end, by some other technique, I'm violating their patent. EVEN IF, and this is important, I use none of their actual inventions at all! I am violating their patent because I am seeking the same end.
This article highlights a practical fallacy in gene patenting (as opposed to an intellectual one). Genes, which are not the only important kind of DNA, are impotant only because they make proteins. Therefore, in order to make gene-patenting worthwhile, you have to control the protein product. In the case of a gene that makes something found in normal healthy people this is an absurd notion - not that this will stop Amgen from trying.
Patenting genes that cause diseases is a seperate intellectual fallacy that deserved coverage in it's own right.
This is like patenting the act of killing germs. If a disease is caused by an abnormal (mutant) protein, than the only true cure is to fix that protein - replace it with functional protein, or remove those cells generating the harmful protein, according to the particular condition. The same argument applies to gene-products (proteins) that cause elevated risk for cancer, heart disease and the like. A patent on the gene is basically a patent on all possible cures for that condition/predilection. A gene that causes a predilection for breast cancer should be viewed as a condition in and of itself (which needs to be at least treated,) and not as some part of a particular treatment for breast cancer.
Finally, I should say our genomes, not just collectively, but individually, are the property of the human race. In a biological sense, they ARE the human race.
Bees are generally black and yellow, and have poisonous stingers. Individual bees, however black or yellow they may be, and poisonous their stingers may be, are all 100% bees - they all possess an equal allotment of beeness. Likewise, the quality of humanity is 100% endowed to each of us.
However, it does not arise from any of us individually. We are all human only because the entire human species exists. The genome of any individual person is NOT sufficient to specify the human race; the genetic diversity of your fellow human beings is part and parcel of YOUR fundamental human identity.
The same is true, in fact, of the genetic diveristy of all known living things, who are our cousins.
Many people have a viceral objection to the idea of a gene being owned. Certain of my colleagues are fond of implying that this arises from some degree of scientific ignorance on their part, or a lack of appreciation for the effort that goes into doing molecular biology. I am a molecular biologist myself, fully cognicant of the hard work that is done. I understand all of that quite well, but I come to the same viceral conclusion: you cannot that which makes us human.
Also, the parent is really funny. Mod it up.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
in the first place why would they patent something which is OUR birthright? to me this gene patent saga is the epitome of human greed. i don't want to pay some fucking company every day for the rest of my life just because they patented the gene that causes you to pee!
One problem I think a lot of people have is that they believe there should be an objective rule by which all decisions should be made. It's probably a result of the deterministic nature of science and especially computer science. With business, though, there are so many factors to consider before making a business decision that it is simply impossible to take all those factors into account all at once without fudging some considerations.
A company loath to license patents is certainly well within their rights when facing a competitor who threatens to use the licensed patent to take away profits from the patent holder. If a biotech company came up with a cold remedy in their research and it was immediately useful in their serums, they would be fools to license the patent to another cold medicine-making company. However, if someone saw in the patent a path that could possibly lead to the cure for emphysema and needed to license the patent in order to build upon the original research, the company (whose main business is making cough rememdies) would be ethically challenged if they didn't license the patent. In the cases you cited above, the companies acted unethically, abusing their patents by not using them and not allowing them to be used.
Patents are meant to allow the creators a way to make a profit on their hard work and to facilitate the advancement of science by encouraging patent reuse instead of constant reimplementation. When a company does not use the patent for either of these purposes, the patent is worse than worthless because it actually becomes an hindrance to scientific progress.
A government-based arbitration system to whom a scorned patent licensee-to-be can appeal and have their case reviewed by a panel of qualified judges would provide the necessary Subjective viewpoint necessary to make patent licensing decisions on a case by case basis. The best decisions would be those that sought to properly recompense the patent holder without stripping the licensee dry.
Obviously this has the possibility of misuse written all over it, but so does the legal system. It also smacks of socialist tampering, but in reality it is simply an extension of the patent concept of promoting the arts and sciences.
The concept of patents is not broken, only the system used to award them and the companies that hoard them for no use but to crimp research areas. A system that could arbitrate disagreements subjectively would go far in prying open patents that are closed for no reason. Such a system could have opened the door to your colleague's mango research project and made a decent return on investment for the patent holder. Unfortunately, no one has the new mangoes, and the company has gained nothing from their patent.
I have been pwned because my
No, it's true, you did write "pubic".
80% of Americans believe the world was created less than 7,000 years ago, that the first two humans where a white man, and white woman made from his rib.
P.S:
That God created light 3 days before he created the Sun and stars.
P.S.S:
That God created Earth 1 day before he created the Sun and stars.
Not to mention that God decided not to mention:
Antarctica
North America
South America
Asia
Non-white races
...
"
Back to genes. Amgen has patented a means of achieving a desired end - the purification of some protein. If I come along and achieve the same end, by some other technique, I'm violating their patent. EVEN IF, and this is important, I use none of their actual inventions at all! I am violating their patent because I am seeking the same end.
"
This is called product patent and applies to all drugs. i.e once some company patents molecule M any other company is forbidden to do it.
In India we had (before WTO obligation kicks in at 2005) process patent. i.e company A can only patent their process to produce molecule M. Company B has the right to produce the same molecule M using a differrent process without infringing patent. Many western drugs have been prepared in India using more efficient/cheaper processes keeping grug cost down. In India there is no drug subsidy by govt.
But of course after 2005 I wonder how an average Indian will be able to buy drugs.
Worse, because of this bullshit patents are awarded in the US, many countries with LOTS of biodiversity (i.e. Brazil) are clamping on `their' biodiversity `resources', as a panic-legislation against this bio-pirates claiming patents on the genes that they get from organisms living in those countries. This makes honest scientific research almost impossible---no way to get samples, not even for totally unrelated things to gene-mining (like systematics, population genetics, etc.).
PATENTS CONSIDERED HARMFUL!
'Bout time God did something about all of this patent nonsense. I was getting worried.
Are they kidding? If it's alive a really good lawyer will find a way to sue it. Heh, heh.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Just wanted to ruin the lives of everyone trying to get their ISO before the Slashdot effect hits.
Please remember to use mirrors.
Best...Distro...Ever.
Is basically analogous to having a copy of the source code and each time a monkey spits out a page, we look at it and see if it's a match to the page we are holding.
Then the conclusion is drawn that if we can get it by some other way than actually copying it from the original, then we can use it.
Another example of this technique is that lets say I have the complete specs for an algorithim for an encryption technique, lets call it CSS. And I decide to not copy it, but derive my own program from this knowledge that I have of the specs.... is that new program legal? Ask the courts... I still think that Jon kid is still in deep water for it.
steve
The idea that you can infringe on a patent by purifying a protein is ludacrous.
All purification techniques are basically the same. There are basically say about 20 ways to purify a protein (i.e., by size when folded, size when denatured, charge, substrate binding, shape, pH, hydrophobicity, genetically fusing the protein to a tag such as GST and using affinity for that tag to purify, etc). Any procedure used to purify a protein not-before-purified is simply the right implementation of these processes. This is something which takes a while (usually about a year, reserved for grad. students) to get right, because you basically have to have an assay for your protein activity and find a way to purify the protein via these methods by trial and error; you can tell how pure the protein is by measuring activity levels.
In other words, there is NO NEW technique that anyone invents now-a-days when purifying a protein. People figure out new applications and combinations of old techniques, or new specific implementations. However, these are NOT new techniques themselves (i.e., often times, the new implementation may be running the purification at pH 6 rather than pH 7). They are certainly not worthy of patents.
Of course, the greed of biotech companies and the gneral plundering of science knows no limit in the corporate world. They aren't real scientists. Like there are basketball players who play for the love of the game (i.e., Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird), and then there's the guys who play and its all about themselves and making money (i.e., Allen Iverson and Latrell Sprewell). Same thing with biology. There are real scientists who do what they do for the love of science (i.e., Watson and Crick, Rosalin Franklin), and then there's scientists who are all about their own ego and making money (i.e., Creig Ventor).
Had scientists realized that their discoveries would be used as the basis for patents restricting the progress of science, they would have thought up the idea of patent-left, and forced anything based off their ideas to remain free for all to use.
When Linus Pauling pioneered the first protein techniques, he assumed that any modifications to his techniques would be made freely available for all; that was the culture of science. When Rosalin Franklin, Watson, and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they assumed that the knowledge and benefits gained resulting from the knowledge of that structure would be made freely available to all; that was the culture of science. In most scientists minds today, that is still the assumption. Unfortunately, due to proprietary parasites on the scientific community, that assumption is invalid. These proprietary parasites are not members of the scientific community -- they are parasites on it. They add nothing or very little, and hurt the community at large. They are much like the corporate raiders of the net today, who have become a plague to *our* internet.
The scientific community needs to wake up and disinfect itself of these parasites. The scientific community should start copylefting publications and patent-lefting inventions.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Always had an issue with that statement.
Well, Gee, Aren't we all found in nature? Are humans natural? Is what nature does natural? Then isn't it reasonable to assume that anything humans do is also natural?
Even if some gene just happened into existence because humans engineered it (cleaned it up, etc.,) then its existence in nature is achieved by natural means, ie: humans.
Most recent intellectual patents are really dumb anyway.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Mr. Anonomous Coward, It has come to our attention that you are infringing on the patent, copyright and trademark of our client, rice_burners_suck. (Or, more accurately, you are infringing on rice_burners_suck's federally mandated right to eternal profit from valuable intellectual property, a charge that, if pressed, will land you in a dungeon torture chamber where such offenses are punished under the latest revision to the DMCA.) You have two options in this matter: Either you secure a license to use the valuable intellectual property of rice_burners_suck (obviously, for an outrageous fee that will destroy even the most remote possibility of breaking even, let alone making any profit) or cease and desist immediately, promptly destroying all infringing copies of said property (especially those copies that you can no longer destroy, such as the comment you posted on Slashcrack). You have 24 hours to respond, in writing, to our offer for a license (and it must be postmarked two weeks from now and sent with the slowest delivery options). If we do not hear from you during this time, we will believe that you have chosen to cease and desist. If you continue to infringe on rice_burners_suck's right to eternal profit, we will sue you into the grave.
but fair comment: HOW did this make it past the lameness filter?
But a gene is not a drug. It might make more sense to patent a drug which regulates a gene's expression. It might make sense to patent a specific molecule which serves a specific purpose. But a gene is essentially a statistical statement of a biological law: it says, "when X is on, there's R% chance of doing Y" (where R may be 100). Patenting a gene is like patenting quantum mechanics, or Newton's Laws. It's just dumb.
Personally, I think that the whole concept of intellectual property really needs to be Thought Out Correctly, by intelligent people who are relatively disinterested in the outcome. This is just more evidence for it.
Read Bujold. Free (as in
Fry Mumia!!!
"You're just scared like a little white pussy. I'll fuck you till you love me, you faggot!"
That's what the Beatles meant when they said, "And your bird can sing."
I excitedly read your piece, and then found you left out the single critical word that would have completed it. Is this genetically the equivalent of producing an ugly toad instead of a thing of beauty?
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
The knee-jerk reaction against gene patents is unwarranted, and propogated almost entirely by non-biologists.
Gene patents will be justifiably enforceable when gene products (ie. proteins) or closely-related elements are used as therapeutics. If I clone a tumor suppressor gene and use that gene to make a protein which kills tumors when intravenously injected, I deserve patent protection.
If I make a product which exploits the gene sequence, such as antisense RNA, I also deserve patent protection.
If I express the protein, generate an antibody against that protein, and introduce it as a product, I also deserve patent protection.
Those who reflexively assert that "These are my goldarn genes, yoo kant patent me yoo nazi!" need to do some more reading.
Gene patenting will ultimately destroy corporate biotechnology. The ultimate goal of any corporation is easy to define. It's to create a product that everyone has to buy over and over again. So far, fortunately, no corporation has been able to achieve this goal. With gene patents, however, the goal becomes possible.
The scenario is (hopefully still many years away, but) this: Company M gets a patent for a gene to confer immunity to some virus V. Company M then release grain strain G that resists all kinds of herbicidal drugs, but also has a high susceptibility to virus V. G gets out into the wild (accidentally, ha ha), and because of superior engineering, spreads and dominates grain fields throughout the world. Suddenly, through a "random change" in the biosphere, humans all over the world are exposed to virus V. The only known cure involves the gene patented by company M. So everyone has to buy their tablets from company M every week. Of course, the tablets are priced to cost 75% of the average American's salary -- after all, what is your life worth (and who cares about people in other countries, anyway -- they have no money)?
The only reasonable response from any government is to invalidate the patent, and send all the corporate executives to prison where they will earn the nickname "Flexible Betty". Meanwhile, billions of people die because company M is legally bound to maximize profits to their stockholders, and it's just not fiscally responsible to give the drugs out for free. Ultimately, governments everywhere realize that allowing patents on genetic material is a bad idea. So eventually the system regulates itself, but in the meantime a large number of people die so that a minority can increase the value of their portfolios. Makes me think that stockholders should, as owners, be held legally responsible for the behavior of the companies they own, but that's another post in itself.
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Agreed.. You can't patent genes, they are constantly being created and removed from the gene pool *Naturally* ..What if you patent some gene.. there is a good chance that through evolution that gene will likely arise as some point in nature in a *Natural* way... naturally occuring things can't be patented ... Patenting genes is flawed logic
"That's a great synthetic pet! Let's make ourselves a copy!"
"Wait, it's patented."
"Enh, we'll just reverse-engineer it from the neighbors."
Gene-swapping is BORN!
-----------------------
You are what you think.
All you need is a very fast random bit sequence generator coupled to a fast enough printer. Given long enough, it will print out every patentable idea (along with the source code to all copyright applications, the scores for all copyrighted music, you name it.)
Now couple the output to a really powerful radio transmitter so all the outputs get published.
Since the system will ultimately produce everything without an inventive step, it being the output of a random process, nothing is patentable.
Mind you, you'll have to kill every lawyer in the universe first.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Typically the genes that receive patents are new formulations of existing genes. They are not,nor will they ever be naturally occurring. They have been modified to increase expression, reduce redundancy, and have excised non-important segments for the final product. These have similarities to natural genes, but are usually chimeras of several genes or gene segments.
I've never thought of genes as a patentable thing. Sure, they allow patents, but WHY? They didn't invent it, they DISCOVERED it, and last I checked you couldn't patent a discovery such as a law of nature.
Hmm. That's it, I'm patenting the Laws of Thermodynamics. Now you have to continue attempting to make a perpetual motion machine, because if you use my laws to find out that it's impossible, you have to pay me royalties! Ha!
Bleh. Patenting something created in nature is... ugh. Let's patent the leaf next!
Thank you so much! I saw the original 1990 short once upon a time and and absolutely _loved_ it [He was trapped for one hour in the original, not one day] and had been trying to think of exactly what it was for the last month. Couldn't remember the name of it. Now here's the real question. I know you can the 1993 movie from Amazon, but is there anywhere (hell even in VCD) that you can find the _original_ 1990 short?
--Matt
Don't take life so seriously; it isn't permanent.
Nor can you patent a technique for appying for a parent that isn't on the books or in the process of being put on the books.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
"from september on built-in rights-Protection will be mandatory for every cell.
It's all done for the customers safety."
k2r
you cannot own that which made me screw up.
Happy?
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
During the Civil War, the Union military developed a strategy to make manufacturing guns over 20x more efficient. Studying the numbers on the Springfield armory was fascinating.
Once this process was completed, there were clear capitalistic opportunities to exploit this technology. The government got out of the way, and let this manufacturing process make several Americans very, very rich.
The MIC gets pooh-poohed by liberals because of the military involvement, and conservatives for wasting money. However, it is part of the reason that this small country ( 300 million people) is able to dominate the globe economically. (The other parts are abundance of natural resources and the "protestant work ethic" that results in Americans working longer and harder than their European counterparts) The Federal government plows a LOT of money into basic research through the DOE, NIH, etc., as well as future reaching projects through the Air Force/NASA (Air Force does the real stuff, NASA is mostly to support the commercialization of space with a few stunts fed to the public).
Venture Capitalists do NOT fund research, they can't. Their model involves getting a return within either 7 or 10 years (depends on the fund). Basic research normally takes 20-50 years to come to complete fruition, and patents only last 20 now.
By pushing the envolope of science, we uncover new things to exploit. By developing them on US soil, the scientists most familiar with it are in the States. How many stories to you hear of successful companies that were started with someone that did basic research in a government funded lab. On Slashdot, we pooh-pooh that process, but the rest of the country sees it as an American success. They aren't worried that someone is making money, they are happy to see someone live the American Dream.
However, the government is not in a position to exploit technology for commercial gain. They are able to conduct research to support military projects, or conduct research to advance science. Then the American corporate sector is expected to do "research" to develop techniques to exploit this research. Then people get jobs and the economy grows.
Alex
This is called product patent and applies to all drugs. i.e once some company patents molecule M any other company is forbidden to do it.
This is true, and justified in the case of truly synthetic molecules, which are invented, after all. HOWEVER, genes are NOT invented.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
IANAL, but here is more information about the Monsanto case:
... well, then you might have a problem.
...)
Federal Court Canada Decision
From this document it would seem that if those seeds accidentally blew into your field and grew without your knowledge/intent, it's not an issue. However, if you noticed that they were resistant to RoundUp and collected the seeds, planting them the following year and selling the canola
Y.S.
P.S. (And OT!)
This drives me NUTS. The media presents something, later the facts show a different side of the story, but if it's not sexy, it doesn't get presented. (It seems to be really bad in the area of scientific/health research, though I imagine that it's also a problem in other areas
Even if someone is trying to say, do a web search on the topic to gather more information, the facts are often buried in tough-to-read technical, scientific or legal documents that are much harder for the regular reader to wade through than some of the less-factual websites out there. It's no wonder that many people get waylaid by misinformation some of the time.
So how do we make the facts more accessible? Or the media more accountable?
"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress." -- Bender
With all due respect, I don't think Slashdot is the most objective of forums in which "related articles" are presented ...
...
:-/
I admit some bias, as I am a research scientist employed by a company. In our capitalist society, the company will not be able to produce its products if it does not make money. Intellectual property is one necessary commondity my company uses in order to produce products that improve human health.
Do I think the patent system is perfect? No. But I suspect that many people are anti-patent without considering that there are some benefits to the system (e.g. encouraging innovation, ensuring disclosure). Certainly, there seems to be a gut-level reaction when people hear about "their" genes being patented, or of an animal being patented. (Often, these inflammatory headlines do not explain all of the related facts.) Unfortunately, I don't think Slashdot is the best forum to encourage people to look at things objectively
Y.S.
"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress." -- Bender
to have AI code express itself as another code that expresses itself as a outlook transmitted desease. This is what a Balhmeria priest calls hell.
So, Intel has patented an arrangement of transistors and other components
:)
It is important to note that the physical layout falls under copyright law, not patent law, in most cases. The electrical arrangement however, can be patented. Thus with chip design, you are dealing with two IP laws.
Imagine if gene sequences could be copyrighted, too.
In a way, that could be good.
'Your gene sequence includes a significant amount of my gene sequence, and is therefore a derived work. Under the GGPL (GNU Genetic Public License), you MUST give out the source!"
Maybe not, though.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
It's pretty obvious that discussing stupid hypothetical scenerios is a waste of time, however you seem to want to throw ALL hypothetical situations in the same boat.
Here's some basic criteria for determining whether a scenerio is worth discussing. (If you answer yes, it's worth discussing)
1. Is the scenerio likely?
2. Can the scenerio be used to circumvent the law either ligitimately or illigitmately?
Imagine what would have happened to the PC industry if they hadn't discussed the hypothetical situation in which they could circumvent the copyprotection of the IBM PC's BIOS, thus ushering the PC clone revolution.
This is no different...
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Can you imagine if patent law had been around when the periodic table was being fleshed out?
Pubic pubic pubic! Lick my pubic hairs and rebuild my kernel!
-- Linus Torvalds
I'm sorry,
Please look through my past comments, this is not intended to be a troll, but I feel I must say something. The fact that this got moderated up to a score of 4 is pathetic. This text is nothing short of immature, unfounded drivel. Can we please not let such rhetoric become the mouthpiece of our "movement"
The point is that moderation is needed in all things. I'll agree that the current situation is messed up, but that is simply because the pendulum has swung to far in one direction; that of favoring the corporations.
What the above rant states makes no sense... Who are "the evil corporations"? The ability for one to go into business for one's self, and charge whatever you desire for your services is central to the system known as Capitalism.
Furthermore, just where exactly did you pull out your ideas of scientists? There are no research scientists living "lordy lifestyles." There is no such thing as a rock-star scientist. You fail to address the fact that in order to cure cancer, you must spend a lot of money to pay a lot of people to use expensive equipment for a long time. Where would this come from in your "new world" where everyone does what they want for the sheer joy of it (who would clean the toilets in this world BTW)
I don't know which is sadder, the fact that the poster seems to believe that cures for diseases effortlessly appear to scientists who then withhold this information in order to live rock star lives, or the fact that this was modded up.
---Lane
What's the point of moderating?!
It's biological, not digital. I think that it would be hard to argue (in a legal sense) that a DNA sequence is software.
Thank you for pointing that out. I'll change it back to mousetraps next time around; actually, if you could suggest an accurate, but still slashdot-esque, comparison I'd appreciate it.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
I almost went into a rant about how obtuse you were not to understand the difference between copyright and copyprotected. Actually, I started it...
Then I read my parent post...
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
So what if it's biological, DNA is made up of four discrete signals: A,T,C,G, and discrete signals are the basis for digital systems.
How'd this get past the "compression" lameness filter, Taco?
Finally, the perfect topic to post my theory under. Too bad I'm a day late, and no one will read it.
/. is a no no, but I'd like to hear from anyone who has any knowledge about this issue.
If using techniques to coax existing genetic codes closer to a known goal does not infringe on patents, why wouldn't the same be true of the computer version, source code?
Say I wanted to produce my own version of SAMBA. Wanting to do this the quickest and easiest way, I go read the MS patents on this technology. Once I know what I need to generate, I simply use a target genome (in this case, the compilation of code using MS's patents), then evolve a random bit sting to match it using Genetic Algorithms, or Simulated Annealing, or something equally effective and random. When done, toss out the target genome code, and what you have left is an executable that was not created using MS's patents. Or more obviously non-infringing, randomly create code that just happens to compile to the same thing.
And why don't we take this one step further, to Copyright? I can evolve a copy of a file or program without actually taking anything from that file, and using it in mine. So my file will be an independently and randomly created work, so I could not have carried out any unauthorized copying. Again, more so if the algorithm generated source code that reproduced the output of the program or compiled to the binary file itself.
I realize this could be quite time consuming (though I don't think generating just the binary file would be terribly bad), however once done a single time, the (essentially reverse-engineered) file generated could then be released to the public under any number of open licenses.
I know calling for a lawyer's opinion on
I think you have a misconception. Using your example, Amgen patents one method of purifying a protein (e.g.). Their claim will include limitations on the method they use. The innovative steps they take to purify the protein will be limitations in the claim.
In order for you to infringe, you will have to take the same steps they do. You will not infringe simply by achieving the same goal that they did. Your example with the microprocessors shows this idea, but you don't apply it to gene patents. I don't understand why. Maybe you have information I don't?
Gene patents are the same as any other. You must include limitations in your claim. You can't claim "purify proteins" because that is obvious and too broad. It is known in the art to "purify proteins", unless Amgen actually came up with the idea to purify proteins before anyone else ever thought to do that. If Amgen's patent application was the first mention the very idea of purifying proteins, then they should get a patent on it.