Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Biotech Genome Patents Invalidated?

Posted by chrisd on from the uspto-does-something-interesting dept.

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."

10 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. what about by jsse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    previous patents? I think USPTO should admit their mistake and invalidate them too.

  2. Talk about double jeapordy... by kryonD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just imagine being told you have cancer....and then being handed a law suite for not licensing the process of mutating human DNA.

    If only the USPTO would wake up to other scemes like this.

    --
    I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
    1. Re:Talk about double jeapordy... by aussersterne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You paint this to be a kind of extreme worse-case scenario...

      And yet, you shouldn't doubt for a moment that if large corproations could charge you or garnishee your wages simply for getting cancer, they would. I mean, think of how many people get cancer! And by extension, think of the profits! Definitely worth the "investment" in a couple of patents here or there.

      This is the world of Ayn Rand. These are the evils of capitalism. The combination of a patent system run amok and technologies which involve human DNA have given us a glimpse into just how evil capitalism can become... it just goes to show that whether you believe in capitalism or not, you must at least be willing ot put checks on it, lest it rise up and own you and your children (literally).

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  3. I just don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This seems asinine to me. How can somebody claim a patent on genes?? Isn't that like patenting gravity or sunlight?? 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. :)

    1. Re:I just don't understand by Lars+Arvestad · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't think anyone simple claimed a patenet on a gene, because you had and have to claim a utility of it. What happened was that people/companies found a gene or even a small part of a gene, sent it to a patent office and claimed "Uh, this is a gene, and, like, we could cure cancer or something with it, so we want to patent that any other use of it." The support for the utility did not have to be very good and the patent would still go through. The applicant may in reality not have a clue about the gene more than that it was most likely a gene and it looked like something else that people knew might be used for something, at least in worm or fly or some other model organism...

      So it was more like people said "I want to patent the use of gravity to cure cancer. I have no idea how to go about with it, but darn it I am the one to prosper from it would a use someday appear!"

      --
      Reality or nothing.
  4. do they even check? by 7-Vodka · · Score: 4, Insightful
    does the patent office even check if the submissals actually exist/work whatever as claimed?

    or do they just pay 10,000 monkeys to read through it then rubber stamp it?

    I read the whole article and I don't see anything that mentions how these patents are actually checked/verified.

    just says they're getting 'stricter'. Well boo-hoo. Before they just rubberstamped any shite that came thru, and now you have to tell them a little bit about the shite before they rubberstamp it without checking.

    --

    Liberty.

  5. something people are overlooking... by zonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    while i wholeheartedly agree that patenting things like genes seems obviously public domain and incredibly prior art, there is a bigger issue at hand... money.

    several people in my family are scientists involved in genetic engineering and we have had this discussion many times. the point that they make is that pharmaceutical companies must be able to secure their findings to pay for the research they do to find these genes and produce drugs to treat various diseases. remember that companies like merck aren't doing research like this because they are simply curious, no instead they want to find things like the cure for cancer or diabetes or aids or the common cold because it makes them money.

    this research is ungodly expensive, so the drug companies want to make sure that if they did the research and found something, their competitors won't be able to cash in on it before they do. or worse yet, some company in asia making pills for next to nothing. this is their greatest fear, and this is why they patent things like there is no tomorrow.

    while i still find it morally and ethically wrong to patent things like genes, i can't come up with a better way for these companies to do their business. and as much as i'm not into big businesses, i do like staying healthy...

    --

    Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away

    1. Re:something people are overlooking... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They can still patent developments from genes. They simply can't patent the genes themselves. There is a big difference between isolating the genes responsible for a certain type of heart complaint, and using those genes to develop a treatment. They still get repayed for their investment. It's just that the bar has been raised. They need something with a direct application rather than something that may or may not be required for a certain application.

      This does mean that they may be obliged to discover the genes themselves before developing the treatment, but they have the ability to do this. They can simply rely on trade secrets laws to prevent others from using the gene sequence, and equally, they can licence trade secrets. Their payoff is from the patent on the treatment, not the genes.

      The benefit is that this does still encourage information sharing, but also prevents extortionate charging for the root IP. You can choose to licence the information, or if the other company charges too much, you can simply rediscover it yourself. The risk that another company would start charging unfair amounts was a disincentive to actually develop anything based on publically available genes.

  6. Re:Leaps and Grounds by l810c · · Score: 4, Insightful
    DNA, Periodic Table, Physical Laws...etc...

    I don't it should be possible to patent 'information' that is by its own existence 'prior art'. Processes to extract, create, manipulate this information should be patentable.

  7. Copyright by Dusabre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like I mentioned in the other post, COPYRIGHT is something different to a patent.

    Copyrights on human gene sequences cannot be given. Why? Because an 'author' gains copyright. Nobody can author something that other people carry with them from birth as a chemical sequence. Even if a sequence was copyrightable then you would not have to license your DNA from Big Bad Corp because you are carrying it a chemical form, not a sequence of letters, etc etc.

    A patent on a practical usage of a sequence is a completely different matter. Inventions using already occuring elements are fine under law and fine for most people. If somebody patents ATATATAT as a sequence used in a drug to boost human intelligence, then they're creating a new drug using that sequence, in the same way that a hydrogen engine uses naturally occuring metals and hydrogen to push a car. Usage is key and it seems that the Patent Office is pushing the usage aspect. Thankfully.