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."

Comments

No price is enough; other stuff

[sam_handelman]

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.

Genetically modified seeds?

[splorf]

What about the Canadian case where farmer Percy Schmeiser was convicted of patent infringement because genetically modified canola seeds had blown onto his fields and grown there?

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.