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!"
Is there a nonprofit set up to do this sort of thing?
Would the eff or ACLU be willing to do this?
What other patents have been filed with the same effect?
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
It's nice to see research regarding a disease that "KILLS HUMANS WELL" put in the public domain, research that should be in the world's best interest to be public domain, and not nessicarly the IP property of specific companies. If only the same logic was applied to AIDS back in the 80's.
I'm all for people making a profit from research, but it becomes immoral to put the bottom line above human life in order to profit.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Nice to see behaviour that's both principled and commercially astute.
a world in progress...
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. Lost perspective? Perhaps. But things like these are the perfectly rational consequence of creating a society in which everything's about producing, selling, and buying. If you believe in a society like that, it *is* only normal that you can patent genes, for example. Politics the last two decades or so hast willingly steared to a society like this - with the consent of the largest part of the world's population, so IMHO this is not a question of having lost perspective in politics, but simply of politics based on wrong principles.
The problem I believe is as our civilisation and society grow as a whole, each individuals sphere of knowledge and influence shrinks. We're knowing more and more about less and less and having to rely on communication and interaction to maintain the overall expansion of knowledge. I think we've now reached a state where as individuals the majority of us would be incapable of functioning/surviving alone.
I rely on other people to provide me with food and shelter - but then my providers rely on my area of knowledge, IT - my supermarket relies on logistics. Even within my own field I'd be screwed by myself. I vaguely know how my PC works - couldn't build one myself though. Not even the keyboard. Not even the plastic it's made from. Or the ink of the keys. Or the copper in the wires
My basic point is that the Roman empire collapsed due to over expansion in a purely geographical sense leading to communication breakdown. Western civilisation won't fall due to the geographical problem - but maybe there's a critical mass where the sheer complexity of interaction needed for day to day function will be so large it becomes unstable (or too easily destabilised).
But this is beyond a joke. Patenting a naturally occuring virus???? I'm sorry, but the fact someone has to file a defensive patent is ridiculous. Have patent laws gotten so god damn awful that we have this total nonsense?
Yes, I am aware some companies have patented genes of the human body that are naturaly occuring. I regard that just as absurd and even dangerous. No one has the right to lock away from others stuff liek that. for no reason and no motive is that justified. for no reason and no motive is the patenting of naturally occuring substances right. You are not inventing after all. However, process to do with those genes or substances that require human intervention (say.. a vaccine), yeah well there is a case there. This is a sad indictment on human society if we truly believe we can claim to something naturally occuring in a patent. Prior Art after exists.
No patent? Err... have you read the article? It's about someone patenting the genome to prevent less noble groups from doing that, as:
m$-like farmaceutic company's patent = high prices = much money = rich researchers + little more money for research = dead poor poople who can't avord the expensive cures, as is happening nowdays with 'cures' for AIDS...
filed a defensive patent application to ensure the information remains in the public domain.
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.
They might claim it's to keep things in the public domain, but there is no need to do so. I suspect it's just PR while they hope to make money from their "public domain" patents.
There's nothing wrong with patents to make money, cut out the PR crap.
Are politicians that DAFT to see what is going wrong?
... ??
I believe this is known as a rhetorical question
Seriously though, although the answer is defintely yes, I think it is difficult to expect the politicians themselves to be deeply knowledgeable about this subject. Most of the IT/IP laws associated with the internet that have been passed in the last few years provide more than enough evidence that the people who make the decisions blatantly don't understand the situation. I think a lot of the blame lies with the advisors, the people who should know what they are talking about and who should see where this is going.
I'm not sure how American politics works, but in Australia, politicians move portfolios all the time, and there is no way any of them can become an expert in their area in just a few months.
It seems to me that politicians are making simple stuff complex.
That's because most politicians, advisers, speech writers and behind-the-scenes people in politics are lawyers, and making simple things unnecesarily complicated is what they do for a living. The law doesn't allow for common sense, and there is no room for it in politics either.
I know I have a very negative and apathetic view of politics and politicians, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I don't think I'm that far off the mark.
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
Okay... I can (barely) understand patenting genetic code. Of which, I like to think that I have the exclusive rights to using my own genetic code. If RMS is reading this, he'd probably suggest that the human genome should be licensed under the GPL.
But how can an organization be granted a patent on an organism? I mean, at what point are people going to file for a patent on the Zebra?
Perhaps the answer is -- ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INFECTED!
Seriously, you can't have rights to a virus. Besides the fact that 1) it's already been created (prior art) and 2) viruses don't care about laws and such. I mean, seriously, what would you do if you owned the rights to a virus -- sue everyone who got sick from it?
"Yes, your honor, he caught my virus. I'm asking for both punitive and compensatory damages due to his *cough* alleged *cough* illness."
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Wouldn't any other patents be invalid under prior art? After all, they announced it to the whole world. How could anyone possibly say they discovered it first when you could open a newspaper and see their earlier discovery announcement there?
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
This sounds similar to a recent high profile patent ruling. Here are some pre trial details:
What does the public think? Perhaps the most frightening aspect of gene patenting involves public policy. Amid public misconceptions of what is actually meant by patenting a gene and in an environment of constantly progressing technologies, there are patent infringement lawsuits drawing national attention.[163] A good guess at how the PTO's utility guidelines will hold up under challenge in the courts is likely to be demonstrated in the pending case where the University of Rochester sued G.D. Searle for patent infringement.[164]
The University of Rochester obtained a patent to the Cox-2 gene in April 2000. Almost immediately thereafter, Rochester filed suit against Pharmacia and its subsidiary, G.D. Searle.[165] Searle, a major pharmaceutical company, produces Celebrex, better known as 'super aspirin,' which acts as a chemical inhibitor to the protein encoded by the Cox-2 gene.[166] Rochester asserts patent rights to not only the sequence and protein product of the Cox-2 gene, but also to the method of using a drug to block the gene product and alleviate pain.[167] Although Searle admits to having used scientific findings on Cox-2 during its search for a pain-inhibiting drug, attorneys for Searle believe that the Rochester patent is invalid on grounds that the university has not given precise instructions for finding the drug inhibitor.[168]
Although issued before release of the new utility guidelines, the challenged claims are being examined in a manner similar to prong two of the new utility test.[169] This prong rejects patents for failing to adequately teach others how to use the claimed invention.[170] The court's ruling in this matter should reveal whether the new utility standards are sufficient to ensure patentability, or whether the guidelines will need some refining.
Given the number of academic institutions protesting patent applications on the grounds that university researchers will not be able to afford licensing fees, Rochester lends itself to an intriguing brand of hypocrisy when one of its attorneys states that "[s]omehow there is a school of thought that different rules should apply to basic research in medicine, and I don't think that washes under any kind of scrutiny."[171] Nonetheless, the University's tactics raised eyebrows when it asked a judge to force Searle to take the drug, which is currently being used by seven million people, off the market because Searle would not pay royalties.[172] Meanwhile, a "giddy" University of Rochester official remarked that this patent might be "the most lucrative in U.S. history."[173]
The judge ruled the patent invalid because it did not teach how to achieve the useful result (new drug production) but only pointed the way toward that result.
In short, although the '850 patent describes an assay for determining whether a given
compound possesses certain desired characteristics, and identifies some broad categories of compounds that might work, these descriptions, without more precise guidelines, amount to little more than "a starting point, a direction for further research."
U of Rochester stated that they would appeal.
BTW US PTO might not allow this SARS application based upon ultimate appeals court ruling of U or Rochester case.
This tired old line of reasoning is worth very little once you understand that pharmcos spend twice as much on marketing as they do on research.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush