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!"

17 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. A question that has to be asked... by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
    1. 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.

    2. Re:A question that has to be asked... by samael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Absolutely - asking a private company to do that would be unfair.

      Which is why a socialised medicine system (like the UK or Canada has) whereby society takes upon itself the burden of making sure that "nobody is left behind" is the only reasonable solution.

      Well, the only reasonable solution that doesn't leave poor people to rot in the streets.

      --
      My Journal
    3. Re:A question that has to be asked... by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no natural concept of ownership of ideas. If there were, the constitution would not need a special section creating the artificial protection of intellectual works.

      An idea is not property, property implies the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing. An idea is useless if you don't tell anyone about it, therefore ideas can't be property without the various patent, trademark, and copyright laws, which confer an artificial ownership to an idea.

      Monopolies in itself are not anti-free market

      A free market is based on the fundamental principles of mutual consent. There is not mutual consent when you are forced to buy something from a monopoly. There is no informed choice being made when there is no choice at all. Monopolies are one of the great potential failings of the free market, Marx was right enough about that. As a result, we need to be extremely careful when deliberately creating artificial monopolies.

      You can think of a few professions that do nothing but "sell" ideas - IT consultants

      A consultant usually sells a service, not a product. I doubt many consultants would be put out of business if all IP laws were repealed.

      Perhaps the fact that we've limited the free market this way insured that Marx's economic predictions didn't become a reality

      Indeed. As a Libertarian, I often disagree with other Libertarians about monopolies and the free market. Some hard line Libertarians do argue things similar to what you were saying.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:A question that has to be asked... by nounderscores · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, Insureance companies are supposed to spread the risk over the community, because it is harder to disable the community than it is to disable the individual.

      Have you ever gotten sick and found that people came around bringing food as soon as they heard?If you haven't, then you need to get better friends. And bring food to them when they can't walk.

      Freedom is a two way street, it is true, and one that is not walked alone.

    5. Re:A question that has to be asked... by TGK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excelent points, most of which lead to socilized health care. But what does such a system do? How does it work? The USA is still grapling with this idea.

      There are of course two sides of the fence.

      Pro -- All persons have the right to "life, liberty, and persuit of happiness." Included in "life" is the right to receive the best medical care available. A millionare is not more deserving of quality healthcare than a school teacher.

      Con -- A system wherein state-of-the-art healthcare is provided at tax-payer expense rather than at personal expence is inherently inefficient. Hypocondriacs and others will take advantage of the system, constantly seeking medical care for irrelevant or non-existant problems, clogging the system and draining its funds.

      Now I'll admit out front that I'm all for socialized health care. I'll also throw out in the open that I'm a childhood cancer survivor (and if I receive spam for hair growth products I'll hunt you down like the dog you are). I have seen too many children die because their families could not raise the money for a bone marrow transplant. I have seen children subjected to horrificly painfull procedures without anesthetic because private health insurance wouldn't pick it up. I have seen kids go without necessary tests and the diagnoses that would come from those tests for MONTHS because of financial pressure from HMOs to cut down on so called "non-essential procedures"

      I know it's hard to show pity and mercy to those you've never met. But to those of you opposed to this I want you to ask yourself. What is the CASH VALUE of a child's life? How much money is it worth, to you personaly, to raise the survival rate on childhood cancer 10%? 20%? 30%?

      Early diagnosis is THE KEY to curing nearly every single affliction that strikes the average american below the age of 75. Early diagnosis and preventitive care can halt simptoms of even the most horrific and uncurable diseases giving a patient decades of productive, happy, and (fairly) healthy, life. What are those decades worth? What is the cash value of a child having a father? A mother?

      It is not uncommon in some european countries to pay 80%+ of your income in taxes. 80%!!! That's huge! On the other hand the government picks up transportation costs (for the most part), housing for anyone who can't afford it, food, healthcare, and thousands of other related expenses. There is little or nothing left to pay FOR.

      I'm not advocating a system that radical. But there are some issues in this country that need to be looked at. We somehow belive that taxes are a black hole into which we throw money and get nothing back. $300+ a month is $3600 a year without co-pays etc for health insurance for ONE PERSON. A federal system could easily cut that cost in half, provide superior care, superior coverage, and still have money left over to fund research in new directions.

      Sure, if you're making $500,000 a year the tax hike to pay for a system like this would suck for you. Would it hurt so much to do some good though?

      Final point -- What it really comes down to is this. We've allready got this system in place. It's called private health care. The problem with this system is several fold however.

      1 - It's out to make a buck, a socilized system just has to break even.
      2 - It excludes the poor, who are the ones most in need of preventive care, and whos medical expenses drive up the cost for everyone else because they lack that care.
      3 - It still doesn't cover you if something goes horribly wrong. The chances of this are pretty slim, but it all goes back to problem 1.

      Step out of the political dogma we've all been fed. What would a system with 100% coverage for 100% of the population be worth to you? $100 a year? $200? How much would you pay? How about $3600 a year? That's about what you're paying for worse coverage now, and it's not like it's not a tax. Sure it's not levied by the government, but how much of a choice do you really have? Sure, you can opt out, but then when something goes wrong you're screwed. Natural selection will take care of the opt outs. It's doing a great job so far.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  3. 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.
  4. All those Chinese Infringers--Call WIPO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. 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...
  6. 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).

  7. 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.

  8. Pharmaceutical Companies...that evil? by efatapo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. Public ? by tmark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Not in this case, bozo by Akardam · · Score: 4, Informative

    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".