Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SARS Researcher Files Preemptive Patent Application

Posted by timothy on from the my-bug dept.

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!"

9 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. A few Questions by littlerubberfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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)
    1. Re:A few Questions by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually, a "BFF" (Biotech Frontier Foundation) would be a good organization to have around. They could contribute to the freedom of the biological research world in a number of ways:
      • Campaigning against stupid patents that lock up what should be public knowledge in the hands of one company or institution (and yes I know that isn't what this patent application is, but the point is they shouldn't have to file a "defensive patent" at all.)
      • Education about hot-button issues like stem cell research, cloning, GM food, etc. so people can make rational decisions based on knowledge instead of hysteria.
      • Legal defense for scientists who feel that dissemination of knowledge for the good of mankind is more important than laws based on the abovementioned hysteria or the "homeland security" boogeyman.
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  2. Yay, go information by zakezuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  3. But we'll take the money anyway! by Malfourmed · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Marra and Abraham said the discovery could end up being a financial windfall.

    Abraham said the initial plan is to ensure 50 per cent of any money goes to the research facility and the remaining 50 per cent to the scientists.

    "We think it's a discovery not an invention, but we'll take the money anyway (and put it to excellent use)." :)

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. Nice to see behaviour that's both principled and commercially astute.

    --
    a world in progress...
  4. Re:A question that has to be asked... by Dashmon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. I sometimes feel the same way. by goldcd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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).

  6. I'm no expert... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Complete BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Read the fine print... by JTFritz · · Score: 3, Interesting
    A firm in Hong Kong is seeking the patent to the entire SARS virus.

    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?