Slashdot Mirror


Outstanding Achievements In Biopiracy - 2004

mr_don't writes "The Coalition Against Biopiracy is hosting yet another 'Captain Hook Awards,' for 'Outstanding Achievements in Biopiracy.' So far, only a few nominees have been submitted, but a key one is for Melbourne-based Genetic Technologies for 'having patented the non-coded DNA of all living creatures, including humans.' The web site is calling for 'help to identify the Greediest, Most Offensive and Dangerous biopirates from across the globe' -- I am sure Slashdot readers certainly know of a few."

11 of 34 comments (clear)

  1. Yet another example... by ivern76 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of how braindead the patent system is. How can they allow someone to patent something they didn't even *invent*? I'm very surprised none of those companies they're suing have tried to get the patent declared invalid, there's prior art going back a few million years...

  2. A little more info please by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It may simply be a patent on "methods for researching non-coded, or "junk", DNA."

    So what's the problem with that? I'd like to see a little evidence that they've indeed "patented the non-coded DNA of all living creatures", and not just come up with some convenient way to analyze it.

    1. Re:A little more info please by mlush · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It may simply be a patent on "methods for researching non-coded, or "junk", DNA."
      So what's the problem with that? I'd like to see a little evidence that they've indeed "patented the non-coded DNA of all living creatures", and not just come up with some convenient way to analyze it.

      If your working on 'junk DNA' in any species, you will have to pay them royalties I'd say that that counted as a patent (I bet that the patent is written so broardly that it covers all techniques (both persent and undiscovered)).

      On top of that the definition of a gene is very unclear. For a start there are things called pseudogenes these have the sequence of a gene, but are effectivly junk DNA, if I cloned a pseudogenes by accident (easy enough to do if your looking for the real gene) and my institution has no license, will they get sued?

      Finally the some convenient way to analyze junk DNA are almost certain to be straightforward and obvious with masses of prior art

      I'm willing to bet that the 'methods for researching non-coded, or "junk", DNA' will almost certanally be really really obvious with masses of prior art. On top of that the real trouble is that what is junk DNA

  3. Maybe not a Biopirate by Micro$will · · Score: 3, Funny

    But he will be responsible for the Eugenics Wars. KHAN!!!

  4. Is this illegal and if not, why not? by Andy+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Patents such as the example given at the top of the page should be illegal. They are without merit and are effectively premeditated malice as the company intends to play "law suit roulette" by suing as many companies as they can with the hope of winning more cases that they lose. Such patents are unhelpful to the human race as a whole and are damaging to the ethical companies who get caught up in the malicious law suits. Doesn't that sound to you like it should be a crime?

    1. Re:Is this illegal and if not, why not? by gooru · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I would love to see is a patent governing the act of getting bad patents and suing the pants off of everyone as a business method patent. This would certainly show the ridiculousness of the current state of patent law. And if the courts uphold it, I'm moving out of here.

    2. Re:Is this illegal and if not, why not? by WTFmonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think the only semi-realistic and short-term way out of this is to fire the whole lot of examiners, hire lots of new smart people to do it, and pay them lots of money to do it well.

      The way this stuff's going, I'd be willing to pay a few extra bucks in taxes to hire some smart, big-brained muthas with field experience (I think that's especially important) who are going to say "no" when they should and say "yes" when they should. Put the chimps who are doing it now out on their asses.

  5. Intron patents by diaphanous · · Score: 4, Informative

    Looking at the summaries of the intron ("Junk DNA") patents, they seem to be applications of completely general techniques and knowledge (restriction digests & DNA sequencing (first developed in the 1960's), introns (discovered in 1977), and PCR amplification (invented in 1985)) to a subsection of the domain the prior techniques were intended to cover.

    It's a bit like having someone invent the automobile then someone else patenting "Using an automobile to deliver packages"

    Specifically the patents seem to be:

    1. Use primers derived from dna sequence flanking the intron and immediately inside the intron to PCR amplify the intron

    2. Do stuff (sequence, map restriction sites) with the intron sequence you've amplified in step one.

    This isn't to diminish any insight the inventor might have had into the importance of "junk DNA", but the method described is a straightforward application of more general processes.

    ~Phillip

  6. Was it just me... by The+Fink · · Score: 2, Funny
    or did anyone else read the "category" of this story as from the they-stole-our-pants dept.?

    I was beginning to wonder where they'd gone...

    No, just me? Oh. Oops.

  7. To whom does DNA belong? by ajs318 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My DNA belongs to me, obviously.

    But what about DNA in other life forms? I have a piebald gerbil, who everyone thinks is the prettiest of the lot. Whose is her DNA? Have I the right to breed from her and sell the offspring? Probably not if you believe the animal rights extremists {BTW, if you're one of them: organic fertiliser is made from animals} but what's a gerbil going to do by way of revenge? {Apart from escape from her cage and chew through my CAT5 in several places, but that's too horrible a thought to contemplate}. However, once I have sold any of my fancy-coloured gerbils, I lose all claim to them. I can't prevent them breeding {actually it is physically possible to sterilise a gerbil, but the anaesthetic is the sticking point; too little and it dies of pain, too much and it never comes around. You could dilute the dope to measure it [easier to measure whole grammes at 0.1% than milligrammes at full strength], but you'd need to re-purify it before administering it.} Anyway. The point is that if I breed an animal or a plant, its DNA does not belong to me.

    Or, suppose I had bred a certain Medicinal Herb that had particularly fine qualities, with the intention of selling it in ten-pound wraps. If I really wanted to make sure nobody else could grow my wonder Weed, then I should be responsible for making sure it has no viable seeds in it -- and if I fail, and someone else starts selling the same product cheaper, well, that's my tough titty. {Don't try this at home, kids; the offspring from first generation hybrids may bear little resemblance to the parent stock. Draw some mendel diagrams if you want to prove it to yourself.} DNA is in the Public Domain. We just haven't quite finished recovering the source from the munged binaries we were given.

    At any rate, we need to push for an INTERNATIONAL law that there is NO "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" IN LIVING THINGS, and impose sanctions on countries whose laws do not recognise this concept. This may upset a few rich people, but so did the abolition of slavery. Ultimately it would ensure that science would benefit society {e.g. disease-resistant crops to feed the world} rather than harming it {e.g. high-maintenance crops upon which biotechnology and associated companies, and precious few others, get fat}.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  8. Consider Stallman's essay on "Biopiracy" by jbn-o · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I came across an interesting essay of RMS' on "biopiracy" that is worth considering.