Slashdot Mirror
Biotech Genome Patents Invalidated?
bruthasj writes "The Boston Globe has a piece about all the Biotechs grabbing patents that dealt with segments of the Human Genome. It appears there are work arounds and that the USPTO basically disregards further patents on the genome. As one quoted: ''The land grab is over''. Read about it here."
If they do keep the current patents, how can they justify not allowing patents to be set while keeping other patents? Isn't it just a case of double standards?
:)
I don't think it'll be like that. I think this new ruling means that everything concerning the human genome is public domain now - makes sense really, general good of humanity and all that
---
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" - Gandhi
I don't think it'll be like that. I think this new ruling means that everything concerning the human genome is public domain now
Oops! I stand corrected... The new patents are now refused, and (quoting from the article):
"companies have figured out ways to work around issued patents for specific genes and proteins."
So it seems to be saying that although the previous patents have not been invalidated, there are workarounds.
---
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" - Gandhi
I thought you had to invent something to patent it. Marconi patented the radio, he didn't patent radio waves. (and yes i realize he may not have patented the radio, but it did sound good. :)
:)
The funny thing about that is Marconi tried to patent his radio device but the patent office, becouse the device only worked short distances, said that it had no use. If that isn't irony I don't know what is.
hook
They're adding the requirement that you have to show a real invention that uses the gene for a real, useful purpose. Before, companies were sequencing genes like mad and running to the patent office armed with bundles of CD-Rs full of A, C, T, and G. That isn't considered good enough anymore. Basically you have to present them with something like a mechanism of action for a drug.
This isn't perfect for several reasons:
-The genes themselves are discoveries, not inventions, should never have been patentable in the first place, and should still not be patentable now even if it is harder to do so. (The fact that a lot of money was spent does not change this.)
-A gene patent is publicly disclosed after 18 months, which tips off competition that the gene might be interesting for further research. Companies will be more reluctant to patent genes, and will simply choose to keep them a secret instead. Since the patents turned out to be strategically worthless anyway, this could be a bad development from the perspective of technological and scientific advancement.
-The tighter rules mean fewer useless gene patents will come in, freeing up a number of USPTO examiners, which means more time to rubber stamp other unrelated, and perhaps more damaging, patents.
Beginner's guide to gene patents
3 97 385,00.html
Special report: the ethics of genetics
James Meek
Wednesday November 15, 2000
The Guardian
What is a patent?
A patent is a kind of licence granted by a government to an inventor. It gives the inventor the right, through the courts, to stop rivals from making, using or selling an invention without his or her permission. When a patent is granted, the invention becomes the property of the inventor. However the patent can be bought, sold, rented or hired.
How long does a patent last?
Normally 20 years. After that, anyone can use the invention without restrictions.
Who issues patents?
In Britain, the UK Patent Office. But Britain is a signatory to the European Patent Convention, so inventions patented in one of 19 other European countries can have patent protection here too through the European Patent Office. Under the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, which came into force in 1995, almost the entire world is supposed to have acquired similar patent rules.
What are the criteria for granting a patent to an inventor?
An invention must be novel - no-one else can have made it public; innovative - it can't be a development which would be obvious to specialists in the relevant field; and useful - it has to aid a practical human activity. It cannot be simply a discovery.
But surely genes are pure discoveries?
So opponents of gene patenting argue. They also point out that with modern automated gene analysis techniques, the non-obviousness of genes is becoming doubtful. Supporters of gene patenting say gene function is not obvious and that genes are not mere discoveries because the genes are patented together with inventive descriptions of how they can be used for diagnosis or therapy.
So what living things can be patented?
Naturally-occurring life forms, from plankton to people, cannot. But genetically engineered plants and animals, such as GM maize or lab mice designed to be prone to cancer, can. So can the naturally-occurring chemical codes and substances which allow all plants and animals, including humans, to function on a cellular level - like genes, or hormones - as long as the 'inventor' can specify a use for them.
Why should anyone want to patent something which occurs in nature?
Holding a patent on a human, plant or animal gene gives the holder control over commercial exploitation of that gene. If it's a human gene, that may involve diagnosis or therapy for a disease; if plant or animal, it may also involve disease, the promotion of a desirable characteristic like a sweet taste, or the transfer of the gene from one organism to another.
If someone has patented something which occurs naturally in my body, do I have to pay them?
No. Confusingly, a naturally-occurring gene can be patented as an isolated sequence, but not a gene in its natural state.
Can someone use a patent to block research?
Yes and no. One of the claimed advantages of the patent system is that it obliges the inventor to publish details of his or her invention, allowing academic scientists to study it. But as soon as a researcher tries to make commercial use of developments based on the original patent - by going into partnership with a drugs firm, for instance, or charging patients at cost for a genetic test - the patent holder can step in to stop them, or oblige them to pay a licence fee.
How important are patents for innovative companies?
Traditionally very important, as inventor James Dyson's recent victory over Hoover in the bagless vacuum cleaner wars showed. Many biotech companies, big and small, argue that genes must be patentable to allow firms to recoup their investment in identifying them. But other firms fear allowing genes to be patented before any specific, proven use has been established for them will hold back medical advances.
Can governments override patents?
Yes, if they feel it is vital for the public good, and the patent holder is being too restrictive.
What would be the impact on the economy if gene patenting was banned?
Unknown. The majority within the biotech lobby argues that it would discourage investment in genetic research. Yet the cost of identifying the function of a gene is a fraction of the cost of turning that gene into something useful, like a drug. There is an argument that the pharmaceutical industry, which has to come up with the bulk of the money anyway, would do better if firms were able to work freely with any genes and focused on patenting drugs instead. However, gene patent ownership is so important a part of biotech companies' stock market valuation that to threaten the concept would cause a market upheaval.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,
It can't be 'prior art' if no one besides the extractors know about it.
The debate is not over patenting DNA, but DNA sequences. By this, I mean, not the biological manifestation but its representation. You're free to discover it and use it yourself, if you can.
However, if you need to know the sequence, the representation. A case can be made that this accurate representation is the fruit of an ingenious mechanism that is the creation of its discoverer. Should the discoverer be obliged to part with this fruit because of its natural truth ?
P.S. A lot of posts lament about the difference between copyright/patent. While the difference exists, I'm referring to the application of any legal instrument which aims to appropriate exclusivity to a certain group or individual.
There is actually a 5th character used, U (uracil). It exists in mRNA (messenger RNA, represents DNA code when transported from the cell core to the ribosome). T is replaced by U.
It seems like the author of the article confused nucleotides (A,C,T,G) with Amino acids (22 of them).
with streams of As, Ts, Gs, and Cs, letters that represent the four amino acids that make up the DNA fragments that relate to the kinases.
Amino acids consist of 3 nucleotides, so a series of nucleotides convert into N/3 amino acids. As an example, the nucleotide sequence "GCA" transforms into the amino acid alanine (A) and so forth.
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Stewart: You were essentially competing with Celera Genomics in a race to assemble the genome, and they had procured what was reportedly the most powerful civilian computer in history for their effort. What tools did you use to beat them to the result?
Kent: 100 800 MhZ Pentium processors with 256 Mb RAM each, running Linux, the gcc compiler, the vim editor, a whiteboard, and occasional ice packs for the wrists.
To play Devil's Advocate....
I really don't see how gene sequences are patentable anyway - I always understood that patents were to protect inventions. Gene sequences are discoveries, not inventions
From Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Emphasis is mine.
DISCLAIMER: I do not believe gene sequences should be patentable (unless they are wholly synthetic sequences that do not occur in nature). I am simply playing Devil's Advocate to the OP.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.