Slashdot Mirror
SARS Researcher Files Preemptive Patent Application
ocean-navigator writes " CP Press is reporting that the B.C. Cancer institute has filed a defensive patent application to ensure the information remains in the public domain. The lead scientist asked specifically for his name to NOT be on the application, as he feels that he made a discovery, not an invention. Nice to see a few people with principles, in my own backyard too!"
It seems to me that politics and the likes has lost perspective.
Is there not a problem in society when somebody is patenting a gene to keep in the free market? I am glad that they are doing it, but I see a bigger problem.
Are politicians that DAFT to see what is going wrong?
It seems to me that politicians are making simple stuff complex. The more and more I see this stuff I really wonder if Western civilization is collapsing. Somebody said this once to me on flight to Boston in 2002. They said 9/11 was the high water mark in Western Civilization. Like the Roman empire that eventually disappeared so too will the Western society....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
While the net effect of this patent application might be a good thing for the world with respect to SARS, it kindof sets a bad precedent, namely by showing that something that someone feels SHOULDN'T be patentable IS, in fact, patentable.
It'd be better if they could just register the discovery and classify it as a non-patentable discovery. Not everyone who files a patent is going to be as generous as this doctor, and now every greedy SOB out there has a precedent to file a patent that shouldn't be approved.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
So far all I'm reading is how evil pharmaceutical companies are, that they want to profit from their inventions and keep progressing as a company. Why is software sold? Why is music sold? Because it took someone long and hard hours to create what you're enjoying. And for that, they should be compensated. That compensation should reflect the cost of creation.
For a musician that would include musical instruments, recording technicians, etc. For a software developer that would include computers, training, beta testing. For a pharmaceutical company that requires a LOT more. First you need to identify the etiological agent, the cause of the disease, and then you need to identify the biochemical effect on the body. Then you need to identify a potential synthesizeable chemical to change the effect. You are already talking YEARS and you're nowhere near selling the product, this is all expense and no promise of reward because at any time you could find a flaw and the whole project goes belly up. Once you have narrowed your potential therapeutic you can apply to test it in humans. Pending approval there are three phases of 6 months to 1 year clinical trials. And remember, you haven't made $1 yet.
So you've put years and millions or even billions of dollars into the development of this drug and people are whining about drug companies recouping this money and turning a profit in order to develop the next drug that will keep them on this planet for another couple years.
There is no need for a "defensive patent" to keep something in the public domain. Patents must be useful, new & innovative and non-obvious. As soon as something is made public, it becomes non-patentable.
A defensive patent like this stops an unscrupulous company from filing future patents built upon this discovery. If this knowledge was just made available in the public domain, then a small variation/incremental improvement could legally be patented. Right now, this can't be done without licensing the information from the current patent holder, which seems unlikely given their political stance.
This is just as much about preventing future patents as making the current discovery freely available to other researchers.
to ensure the information remains in the public domain
IANAL, but this is not how I read the article. Specifically, a representative of the BC cancer agency (the party applying for the patent) talks about generating royalties and revenues, and even about how the revenues are going to be allocated. How can they generate revenues if the information is "in the public domain" ?
All they really talk about is making sure no one group monopolizes access to the information. But maybe that's just good press, and far from a substantive pledge. Who knows what it will mean if they are granted the patent. In any case, it seems clear they're ready and willing to reap royalties and licensing fees.
I doubt you would
You don't know me.
Any idea why people in general consider unpaid work as unrewarding work? I bet that by the time you hit your 30s and after working yourself to death for your degree, you'll realize that it really sucks to live in a crappy apartment in a crime-infested neighbourhood, eat cheap beans every day and take your laundry to an all-night laundromat because you cannot afford any better.
Any idea in general why life without money can suck like that? Only because people are too selfish to look after eachother. Ever heared of welfare funds, btw? Here in Holland, stuff is arranged pretty good (that's gonna change, I'm afrad), so that even if you don't have the time to get a full-time job, you can still live very decently, and Holland's not unique. And where did you hear me say earning money is selfish? I'm just saying that it's way better to not only care about yourself, but about others too (I'm actually surprise you don't agree with me on that). The world really would be a better place if people'd do that, and you're argument that "the world is not perfect" doesn't mean that you can't try to make it a better place.
My two cents, and forgive me for not reading through all the posts. It seems that the general theme of those asking for reform is that the 'structures/systems/agencies/policies' need to reform themselves, "the fault is our slightly-malfunctioning government, which needs reform itself.".
I argue that there is no ediface called the government, the system or any such things. To borrow from the earlier work of A. Giddens, our collective actions (including our inactions), combine to create all these institutions. What we do and don't do, has major repercussions on the state of things. That said, we are collectively the "slightly-malfunctioning government". Our actions and in-actions allowed things to get to where they are now.
If we want patent-reform or insurance reform, and hope that the "system" will reform itself, then be prepared to be disappointed. As an example, look at how the MPAA has influenced laws in various American States. If there is some philosophical imperitive that directs our leaders to do the right thing, then some of the stuff that was passed recently would never have happened.
I'm not arguing against or for Capitalism, what does it matter at this point. Getting more people actively involved is what I'm concerned about.
Marx once wrote, "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living."
It seems to come down to that the institute is patenting the sequence, they do want to make money from it, they are just trying to put a positive spin on it. And the researcher, while opposed to it, is pretty much powerless to do anything about it and just tries to keep his name off the application.
Altogether, this is not a good sign.
Publish. ...Publish. Oh, yeah, and PUBLISH. I mean, what the heck is * trying to get publicity for being such a great group (by filing a "preemptive" patent). You do NOT need to file shit. PUBLISH YOUR GOD DAMN discovery, if you've actually made one. Earliest published leads to disqualifications of subsequent patents (not by the authors). Publish. And stop paying into the patent system by paying filing fees. Publish for Christ sakes.
Thank you. I will even go farther.
(1) The sequence of a genome is (like the article says) a discovery, not an invention. They can't patent a genome sequence. The sequence is information, and you can't patent strict information. I suspect the article is missing some critical info--like what exactly this guy is filing a patent on.
(2) If the "inventor" or discoverer or whatever wants to make sure the info stays in the public domain, all he has to do is disclose it. Whether he patents it or not, he is the inventor, and NO ONE ELSE MAY FILE A PATENT ON HIS IDEA. So no one else can legally own the invention. If there even is one.
(3) Whether he seeks a patent or not, he can't prevent anyone else from filing patent applications on their own inventions based on his. So again, his filing a patent application won't make the invention or its non-obvious variations any more public than if he just published them.
I would like to see the actual claims, to know what he is trying to patent. Again, you can't patent this: "I claim the SARS virus genome sequence, which comprises..." That would be a discovery and is not patentable subject matter. Most patenting of genes don't patent the sequence of the gene, but methods of identifying or isolating the gene, or the gene in an isolated (non-natural) state.
not true, if someone else gets a patent they can threaten anyone with a lawsuit no matter what prior art there is, and i wouldnt blindly trust the patent office to have the same understanding of 'prior', so you are indeed taking a chance if you believe this