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."
This brings up again the interesting debate on whether information can be copyrighted by the one whom merely discovered the information, regardless of the fact that the information existed to begin with. Personally, I feel that human DNA is rather obviously public domain...otherwise one is forced to consider the ludicrous situation of one being forbidden to sequence one's own DNA, lest a copyrighted segment result. This is akin to being forbidden to read a CD because the code contained therin is copyright.
previous patents? I think USPTO should admit their mistake and invalidate them too.
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
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. :)
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
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.
The patent should never have been approved, since the actual DNA sequence is taken from a natural source, and beyond that, is the core for all genetic research. No cancer research center trying to eliminate the sequences for cancer risk should have to fill out patent permission paperwork.
It makes me wonder what other naturally occouring substances we could analyze and then later patent. The universities that have discovered the various sub-atomic particles don't hold any exclusive rights.
The whole idea behind it is money, or the rights to make anyone trying to do scientific research based on the genome give something up for the right to use the common human sequence.
Surely ACGT is four bases, hence base 4. Base 2 is binary, your basic 0 and 1.
Of course you could encode two bits of binary information to create a base four digit.
BTW, I am prepared to consider that I have dropped though a hole in the space-time fabric into a parallel universe with differing number theory (I have been playing with chroniton particles and theta-band radiation today)
Remember kids, 1 + 1 = -17 (On a complex plane)
If nature abhors a vacuum, why isn't there more dust in the world?
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
Doesn't anyone else think patenting genes is a little bit too much like this for comfort?
Who said satire was dead? Woo-hoo!
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
At least his bible belt texan redneck outlook means there is no danger of Bush being cloned. thank f*&k for that!!!!
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
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.
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,
This allowed very fast gene patenting and allowed stockpiling genes for later use/research.
This whole thing with overthrowing/invalidating patents is not a big surprise, instead of having a universal patent for the gene, many companies now have loads of new ingredients for catfood, while others can go on about their business. Bon apetit Mr Cat
If you think this sound too unlikely/silly, have a look in the patent registry files :-)
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Doesn't decoding the human genome violate the DMCA anyway?
I mean: god obviously made it very hard to read the code (and didn't post the sources anywhere). So, surely, circumventing His copy protection must be illegal?
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.