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 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"
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.
This would mean that anyone who gets SARS is obviously a dirty rotten patent infringer, as they are making, using and (well, hopefully not selling) the "invention."
Someone should call WIPO and get the Chinese government to enforce patent rights and stop this blatant piracy of our technology.
And everyone should deeply respect the plethora of enforceable patent rights attached to a $75 U.S. provisional patent application.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Nice to see behaviour that's both principled and commercially astute.
a world in progress...
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.
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!
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...
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.
I'm sticking with my current civilisation, we get the orgies and general debaucherous behaviour to look forward to before I start stockpiling the tin cans.
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.
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
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.
Hmm, if I get a patent for something like ie the DNA sequence of the SARS virus should I not also be accountable for it's use? In this case shouldn't victims be able to sue the patent holder for damages??
Note that the linked article mentions a firm in Hong Kong that is seeking to patent the entire SARS virus.
Btw... how are mutations handled? Are they to be considered derived works??
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?
Seems to me those who hold the patents should pick up the tab for the mess.
"What do you do with the mad that you feel when you feel so mad you could bite?" - Mister Rogers
If you had read the article, you would see that the issue at hand is patenting the actual genetic code of the virus. They're not talking about patenting a drug to cure it. The reason people have such a dislike for the drug companies is that they try and patent viruses, and animal genomes. Most people in their right minds can't figure out how the companies can claim patents (whether royalty free or not) to something that they didn't invent! Nature invented the virus, not some guy in a lab (unless this is a whole biological attach, but that I doubt). They're doing it all backwards -- getting a blueprint from the finished product, as opposed to making blueprints to a new product.
Let the drug companies recoup their costs for inventing usefull drugs to cure disease, etc. But patenting virus genomes is nothing more than a money grab, even if it's ostensibly "to keep the information in the public domain".
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.
A firm in Hong Kong is seeking the patent to the entire SARS virus.
The "typhoid mary" should have he right to patent SARS. While SARS is thought of as natrual what if it was a production via this persons body??
Maybe the first person to get SARS natrualy produce's it as a(symptom?) of there stage in life, like peoples odor. Are such things patentable?? (well odors, smell's and fragrances are not. As it has been said, Its a discovery treat it as one.)
Crackers`n`Soup
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.