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.
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
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
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,
Sorry to disagree but this is not capitalism, this is Corporate Mercantilism.
Capitalism is free trade, in every way no barriers no 'protected' marketplaces, what we see today is the rhetoric of the free market combined with protectionist legislation.
These government built barriers such as Patents and Copyrights are a hang over from the days of Mercantilism and have been enhanced and extended at the request of the corporations until we have what have here today, a system of byzantine complexity which encourages and rewards those who obscure and lie and more importantly already have lots of money to buy the next set of laws.
By the way in most countries Corporations do charge you for having cancer, they are the ones providing your care and drugs, even in the UK under the National Health service, the 'Back' office is increasingly run by private corporations.
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69