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!"

Comments

A question that has to be asked...

[SerpentMage]

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....

Re:A question that has to be asked...

[Dashmon]

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.

Re:A question that has to be asked...

[GigsVT]

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.

Yay, go information

[zakezuke]

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.

All those Chinese Infringers--Call WIPO!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

But we'll take the money anyway!

[Malfourmed]

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.

I'm no expert...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.