Patents Versus Your Health

ethzer0 writes "It's no surprise to the Slashdot crowd that patents are a hot topic these days. But a story on Wired reports that Edwin Stone and Val Sheffield, professors at the University of Iowa, have discovered links between 15 genes and certain eye diseases, which means genetic tests could be developed for the diseases. But often the scientists find the genes or parts of them have already been patented. Any diagnostic test involving a patented gene could infringe on someone's intellectual property."

Comments

God

[thebdj]

I am God the creator almight and I claim all patents on ever gene in every living creature.

How did we get to the point where we can do this? You didn't really do anything but make a discovery of something already existing in nature. You created nothing; so how do you patent what you didn't create?

Re:God

[Jorkapp]

I am God the creator almight and I claim all patents on ever gene in every living creature.

Perhaps, but we reverse engineered and open-sourced the human gene.

Re:God

[ckaminski]

I thought this was the whole point of the Human Genome Project? Do the work of sequencing the human genome and make it public domain so it wasn't patentable.

That, and I thought natural discoveries were unpatentable?

Re:God

[the eric conspiracy]

Do the work of sequencing the human genome and make it public domain so it wasn't patentable.

That last "so it wasn't patentable" is where you are mistaken. Sure, you can't patent the sequences per se. But if you have a use for that data such as a genetic test for a disease caused by a certain combination of GATTACA, you have patentable material.

Re:God

[ckaminski]

I don't think I ever argued that tests or cures (methods and inventions) based on the human genome were unpatentable. Only that the genome itself was unpatentable.

Nothing there is to prevent me from detecting MS gene precursors with a test that uses genes X, Y, and Z but chemical markers A, B, D and F while Pfizer uses markers C, E, G, and P.

Right?

Call your lawyer

[BortQ]

I have a patent on stories saying that patents may be bad. /. better be prepared to pay me some big money or my lawyers are gonna cream them.

It's shameful.

[7-Vodka]

This all happened for the same reason most evils in modern times happen. Powerful, rich people said "hay wouldn't it be nice if we could patent genes so that then we could make a bigger pile of money when someone wants to work with them?"

So they called their friends who set the rules and had them rule that you could patent any gene you wanted..
And they went to work patenting everything they could get their hands on. Cranking the shit out like it was 1999.
Somehow people managed to get their act together and raise a stink about this and the patent office tightened their rules. Now you have to show how you found the gene, what you think it might be useful for etc. But I'm positive these rules are bent around like bamboo sticks.

So now we have all of the squatters who did the original landgrab vs. the legitimate scientists wanting to do real research.

It's obvious what should happen. The landgrabbing squatters (funny applying this term to the already filthy rich corporatists) should be kicked out on their arses and research proper should begin.

Is it going to happen? probably not. Don't forget how this story started, the powerful pulling the strings.

Re:It's shameful.

[joe270]

It is shameful because it points to the problem with the US healthcare system as a whole: it is based on capitalism. There shouldn't be a profit motive of any kind when it comes to healthcare if you believe in the premise that "all men are created equal". It introduces inequalities based on economic status.

Don't get me wrong...I don't necessarily trust the government to run the healthcare system (like Canada) either. I think that would result in a hugely inefficient system. But something is clearly wrong with the way things are now.

Huge implications for Oz

[naden]

On a side note its amazing how much the medical/software industries are alike wrt to patents. Too many 'obvious' or fundamental concepts are allowed to be patented, thus making it very difficult for progress to continue. And with medical/software, a lot of progress demands priori knowledge to be available.

Back on topic .. the role of patents are a big issue at the moment in Australia as we decide whether to a) sign the FTA with US unconditionally, b) don't sign or the more likely c) sign but with conditions. One of these conditions is that drug companies should not be allowed to sue generic drug manafacturers for patent infringement without very good reason.

Questions maybe some people can answer:

1) Is there a strong likelihood of drug companies not continuing to invest in drug R&D if they are not allowed to maintain a monopoly for some period.

2) Do the major 5 drug companies develop the most life saving drugs or are they mainly nice-to-have (but profitable) ones like Viagra.

Re:Huge implications for Oz

[urbaer]

According to our (Oz's) glorious leader (Howard)the proposed Labour ammendment "would discourage innovation and the creation of new ideas, which are precisely the things that this country ought to be encouraging rather than discouraging".

Maybe someone should send him this article.

The ammendment is likely to be passed though, so it seems that the only reason goverment had this debate was to see who could speak more like an Aussie for the US Press (I think Latham won).

Interesting article from Crikey gets a bit more down and dirty with the issue.

Re:Huge implications for Oz

[FFFish]

There is a BIG difference between patenting a drug that cures a disease, and patenting the disease itself.

I think the latter is where we're heading.

Re:Huge implications for Oz

[jimicus]

There is a BIG difference between patenting a drug that cures a disease, and patenting the disease itself.

FFFish, I think you may have inadvertantly hit the nail on the head there.

Now, because we have patents on diseases, we can sue the disease itself for daring to rear its ugly head without first licensing the relevant patents!

(Or, more likely, sue the patients for catching a patented disease....)

Re:Huge implications for Oz

[bhima]

I work for one of the companies you are speaking about, so I feel qualified to answer your questions.

1: The upper management are the most greedy human beings on planet earth, if they thought they were not going to make at least 20% over their R&D investment in the short term, they would not only not do it, they make it absolute certainty no one else could / would either.

2: Both and also we routinely file for "defensive" patents to make sure just because we can't figure out a use for a thing right now, no one else can use it either. Additionally we wouldn't blink to buy a company, to either have their product in our portfolio or prevent it from reaching the market to compete with one of our existing ones.

Re:Huge implications for Oz

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Oz should not sign the FTA. As has been proven by just about any high tech union out there, FTAs are evil in and of themselves. Especially FTAs with the United States, which lower the standard of living of all middle class citizens in both countries. The only people who profit from FTAs are large multinational corporations.

Re:Huge implications for Oz

[FFFish]

Nothing inadvertant about what I said. Sheesh.

Re:Huge implications for Oz

[jimicus]

sorry, meant "inadvertantly found a solution, a cure to all ills".... could have worded that better.

Invalid

[Kevin Burtch]

These patents can't stand, and should never have been given in the first place.

To receive a patent on something, you have to have INVENTED IT (like a lightbulb).
You cannot patent something you DISCOVER (like a comet).

Do these companies claim to have invented humans, or just certain diseases that have been around for millenia?

Re:Invalid

[cei]

But they can patent the process for manipulating that gene a certain way, or conducting tests on that gene that might produce a certain response, ... the list goes on.

Re:Invalid

[Elledan]

"But they can patent the process for manipulating that gene a certain way, or conducting tests on that gene that might produce a certain response [..]"

So, has the use a hammer to drive a nail into a piece of wood already been patented?

Can one patent a way of solving a mathematical equation? Or any other operation in mathematics?

Then how in the world can things like algorithms (gif, mp3, and many others), let alone tools (macro- or microscopic) and ways to use them be patented?

Re:Invalid

[tqft]

If these peoples &/or corps claim these genes can sue if I get one of the related diseases?

If they are responsible and own it why can't I can sue.

If they are not responsible why the monopoly on the money from gene realted diseases?

Re:Invalid

[the eric conspiracy]

Do these companies claim to have invented humans, or just certain diseases that have been around for millenia?

These people have claimed to have invented ways to isolate the genes from the human body so they can be used for various new things, including genetic tests for disease. The isolated gene, copied through PCR etc. is surely one of the most fundamental and important inventions in history. This isolated form does not exist in nature, and is purely a product of technology.

Re:Invalid

[denis-The-menace]

Can one patent a way of solving a mathematical equation? Or any other operation in mathematics?

Yes, it's called a Software Patent

Patents are gonna have to get worse before it gets better.

Re:Invalid

[PostItNote]

Technically when you get a software patent or algorithm patent you are patenting "a machine that implements this algorithm", so there is a physical something that is being patented. Really, that is BS and they simply found a way to patent math. Blame AT&T - the first algorithm patented was Huffman coding at Bell Labs.

Prior art

[St. Arbirix]

Isn't the existence of the gene prior art? I really need some explaining as to how this works. How is this patentable material?

If funding for scientific research is based on the idea that a company can invent something around those discoveries I fully understand. But what this sounds like is that companies are allowed to patent the fundamental rules discovered and not actually a product of any creative work. It's almost like a company patenting the use of strong or weak forces in an atom upon their discovery. Or someone patenting the human digestive tract.

I'd like to hear that there's something to this that I'm not understanding. Unless someone is actually *creating* this genes then I don't see how thay can be patented.

--Matthew

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

In this vein of thinking, shouldn't someone simply, oh I don't know, challenge the patents? I realize challenging them may not be the easiest thing in the world, but it gets crap like these gene-patents done with before the issues become even more serious.

That said, I'm a coward (and not just an anonymous one), so don't get set to see me challenging anything.

Re:Prior art

[Ohreally_factor]

Yeah, please can some expert step forward and explain this to us? I share the same gut feeling that this is somehow wrong and an abuse of the system.

Is it because it's actually gene sequences that are being reversed engineered and patented, rather than the entire genome being patented in one fell swoop?

Another DNA patent story on wired sheds a little light:

"You can't patent a gene sequence just because you know it," he pointed out. "The sequence has to be novel, useful, and you have to teach somebody how to use it. Those patents will always be available." --William Haseltine, president of Human Genome Sciences

Another interesting tidbit from the article:

"No other sector of the economy depends as much on strong patent protection or on the flow of information from academic science as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology," the authors wrote. [Refering to Dr. Robert Cook-Deegan, director of the National Cancer Policy Board and Stephen McCormack, president and CEO of AlleCure]

[Emphasis mine]

Re:Prior art

[obeythefist]

More interestingly.

If you suffer from a disease that involves a certain gene code that is patented... surely, the "creator", who owns that patent, is responsible for you having it, and therefore liable? Or will they be able to sue you for third degree patent infringement?

If a patent holder prevents you from obtaining treatment for your disorder, can you then sue them for withholding information vital to your survival, which is in essence actively preventing your path to continued survival?

I think that establishing a legal precedent whereby a patent holder of genetic information becomes liable for either a) damage caused by their gene or b) criminal prevention of an individual from obtaining treatment to a life threatening condition would be a wonderful disincentive for patenting the blatantly obvious

Re:Prior art

[the eric conspiracy]

Isn't the existence of the gene prior art?

The existence in vitro, outside the human body of copies of the isolated gene by techniques like PCR is not prior art. Stories about people being sued for their own genome are nonsense because the patents cover isolated genes. Also the patent must include a substantial use for the gene, not just a description of the gene. That use is ALSO not prior art.

Here the story.

Re:Prior art

[Smallpond]

OK, you asked for it. You can't patent something that "exists in nature", however there are a lot of grey areas. Most law deals with plants, but its been wedged more and more open over the years.

- Louis Pasteur patented a yeast in 1873.

- Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) found that genetically engineered bacteria useful for cleaning up oil spills by ingesting hydrocarbons were patentable because they are modified.

- The Plant Patent Act of 1930 established patent rights for developers of new varieties of seed-propagated plants (not hybrids). Carrots, celery, cucumbers, okra, peppers, and tomatoes were initially exempted, but were added in 1980. In 1994 F1 hybrids were added as well (corn and potatoes).

- Ex Parte Hibberd (1985) allows utility patents with no exemptions, on methods used to produce GM plants, which includes the genetic sequence inserted (or removed) from the plant.

DO NOT call your lawyer!

[Dark Lord Seth]

I patented the "Bullshit" gene. Therefore, all lawyers, politicians, CEOs and feminists aren't allowed to do anything at all unless they pay me substantial amounts of money for using my gene. US elections are coming and this patent is going to make me fuckin' RICH!

Also, feel free to mod me down, but only after a 250k Euro deposit to my Swiss bank account as pre-emptive settlement for patent violation. :)

Re:DO NOT call your lawyer!

[geminidomino]

You just HAD to put "feminists" in there and make me snort Pepsi up into my sinuses, didn't you. Huzzah.

Re:DO NOT call your lawyer!

[ellenbrenna]

Well lets see I walked down the street without a male escort, read the newspaper, voted early in a primary and went to work today. All of which makes me a feminist but you can gauge for yourself whether any of that infringes on your "Bullshit" gene patent.

Re:DO NOT call your lawyer!

[Dark Lord Seth]

I think you violated my patent when you hit the "Submit" button.

That would be 250k euro, please.

Consider abolishing patents?

[Thinkit4]

It's sort of a Keep It Simple Stupid choice, isn't it? It'll happen.

Patents are bad certainly for my health

[acidrain]

I think I suffer elevated blood pressure every time I read a patents article on /.

So... what can't I patent.

[jabberjaw]

I am actually being rather serious. If I can patent a gene, what can't a patent? Is it feasible that I could patent a molecule such as dihydrogen monoxide. Could I patent a elementary particle such as the Higgs?

Re:So... what can't I patent.

[eingram]

For the non-physicists: "Could I patent mass?"

Hmm, ideas for SCO.

Re:So... what can't I patent.

[jabberjaw]

Again, I am being quite serious. If (hopefully when...) the LHC team confirms the Higgs, could they file for a patent on their discovery? The LHC's location (French/Swiss border) might complicate the process, but is it fesible?

Re:So... what can't I patent.

[eingram]

Again, I am being quite serious

I didn't say you weren't. :) I don't know if it's feasible or not, I'm not a patent expert. But really, what could you do with a patent on the Higgs? Or like you said earlier, a patent on dihydrogen monoxide (water)? What do these guys with the patent on certain genes do? Keep people from doing research when it involves "their" gene?

Re:So... what can't I patent.

[IBX]

Higgs is supposed to be naturaly occuring so you cannot patent its creation/invention. But even though you cannot patent Higgs as such, you can patent "novel and non-obvious" uses of Higgs boson (which could be defined rather broadly in your patent and can seem obvious to anyone except lawyers). But if your want your "use" patent to be worth anything, you should provide several ilustrative practical examples of such application. Otherwise you run high risk of your patent being butted into by somebody who later has a good practical example and claims that his case has some unexpected novel qualities which deserve separate patents)

The safest intellectual property is to create and patent something that has never existed before - then you own the thing and whoever wants to use it or files additional patents on its uses has to be dependent on you as long as your patent lasts

Re:So... what can't I patent.

[PhilHibbs]

I don't think they can stop research because of a patent - the point of patents is to get the knowledge out into the public domain so that science can advance. What they can do is stop (or RAND licence) commercial applications of the gene that result from the research.

Re:So... what can't I patent.

[Teancum]

While you couldn't patent a Higgs particle, you could patent the process to produce the detector, and how the particle was "manufactured", or in other words how you access and use that particle. If it proves useful, that could make some very wealthy researchers, which is the whole point of the patent process anyway.

That can be done with genes as well, and certainly a novel approach to gene splicing or gene identification would be patentable. The problem is that researchers in this area aren't using creativity and some venture capitalists are seeing huge $$$ for comparitively little effort. Patents should be tough to obtain, precisely because it should be at the leading or bleeding edge of human activity.

Of course, you can start to see somebody trying to trademark a certain color, i.e. Coca-Cola "owns" the RGB triplet #FF0404. Maybe I shouldn't give anybody any ideas here.

Re:So... what can't I patent.

[Anonymous Coward]

...but they do have a trademark on the "Dynamic Ribbon" device...

Obvious Solution...

[dnahelix]

Find the owner of said patents and BEAT the EVER LIVING SHIT out of them!

Re:Obvious Solution...

[IBX]

In Soviet Russia, no genes are private. And their owners are always found (whether they have patents or not)

Re:Obvious Solution...

[balster neb]

Sorry, but I've already patented that idea.

Technique for gaining satisfaction by beating the living s*** out of holders of patents on genetic material

How?

[Kris_J]

If the patent holder didn't know this information about these genes, how did they patent them? This sounds more like staking a claim and hoping to strike gold.

I have some experience in the field..

[SimianOverlord]

..being a molecular biologist. When automated gene sequencers came out, it was possible to screen large numbers of genes for alelles with suspected linkage to various disorders, by comparing large numbers of 'healthy' and 'diseased' sets and hitting the database with various statistical methods. This led to quite a few companies who were doing this patenting whole swathes of genes, but the current opinion is that these patents would not stand up to scrutiny.

In most cases the patent holders have not demonstrated a use for their patent (because they don't know what the gene does without further study), so would lose it. They got a patent, without knowing what a gene does by comparing it to existing genes, looking for similar domains and guessing a functional role i.e. kinase, src homolgy, DNA binding domains like zinc finger motifs, transmembrane helices etc. etc.

Another point is that they haven't worked on each gene in their portfolio since their patent was awarded. I'm certainly no expert, but if you patent something but never use it, or demonstrate a use for it, after some period of time the patent is easily annulled.

The ownership of the genome is a grey area at present, as few government around the world are keen to meddle in what really is a natural resource in the ownership of everybody. It is currently being left to market forces to determine what level of ownership can be given to someone who has put a lot of R&D money into understanding the genetic basis of disease. It is pretty ludicrous, however, that some part of the DNA in my own cells has an ownership right asserted over it by another company or individual.

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[Teancum]

Yeah, wouldn't 4 million + years of use be considered prior art?

If a biologist were able to form their own unique RNA/DNA pattern from scratch and truly "invent" a gene or sequence, I might buy the concept of a patented genes. Particularly if you could write out a gene sequence like writing computer software to a hard drive and "build your own monster"(tm).

Molecular Biology isn't quite there yet (close, and may get to that point), where you can stick in a CD-ROM or download an image over the internet and manufacture an oil-eating bacteria from nothing but raw amino acids. In theory that should be possible, but there is a long way to go for basic science to even understand biological processes to accomplish that task.

The trick here, and the argument that needs to be made, is how we as a society should reward individuals and companies doing basic research in this area. There are also existing gene sequences that can be "discovered" in nature that can prove to be useful, simply because genetic evolution has made many proteins that are quite useful for living things. This is also related to drug patents in the sense that herbal medicines tend to get overlooked because they are not patentable, but if you can demonstrate a novel chemical formula for a related compound that will be patented.

Of course, we are expecting lawyers and judges to understand science, and that is expectig quite a bit.

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[the eric conspiracy]

Yeah, wouldn't 4 million + years of use be considered prior art?

So you are saying that people have been doing genetic tests for diseases for 4 million+ years? Give me a break.

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[Teancum]

No, that is not what I'm talking about.

I'm saying 4 million + years of using a certain gene sequence by myself and my ancestors. That is a big difference.

I'm also saying that you need to have something novel to do when you apply for a patent, and a simple DNA sequence that hasn't been registered with the USPTO before shouldn't count.

Yes, a new diagnostics technique should be patentable, but the scope of the patent would be incredibly narrow if the only difference is the change of a certain protein.

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[the eric conspiracy]

I'm also saying that you need to have something novel to do when you apply for a patent, and a simple DNA sequence that hasn't been registered with the USPTO before shouldn't count.

It doesn't count. Read the patent policy.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/3607.ht ml

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[Teancum]

Just because a bunch of guys sitting around think that somethng is constitutional or legal doesn't make it so, although in this case it is people who supposedly understand patent laws and make "rulings" on these issues.

The patent system is broken, and IMHO political concerns and $$$ are getting tossed around pushing for gene patenting. At least there is a debate going on, but the following statement is somewhat disturbing:

Many arguments against patenting of any genetic material were heard, mainly based upon the premise that genes are part of nature and have not been invented by anyone, thus should not be owned by anyone. The PTO firmly rejected this notion based upon the fact that a gene may be removed from a person, then a clone of that gene may be made in a machine, which is then not a part of nature, but a product of the lab.

What I find incredible is the complete rejection of the arguments against gene patenting. And the idea that other avenues for encouraging gene research with patent laws aren't being explored. A patent should be encouraging novel concepts, and that is what the general public believes the patent system does. That there is a difference between the rose colored view of patents from Thomas Edison that you learned about in grade school and the actual patent system should explain why there is general popular support for the current system.

I would put my political support on those individuals who spoke up arguing against patenting of any genetic material. I think that most diagnostics and manufacturing methods involving genetic material could be covered under existing conventional patent laws and regulations if the patent examiner and the applicant were only a little more creative during the application process. Specifically patenting a DNA sequence, even if you can identify what it does and how to use it, should not by itself be patentable.

That the USPTO is granting patents on stuff like this is besides the point, and I don't like it when that happens.

In my original post in this thread, I was trying to suggest that it would make sense to permit a totally unique DNA sequence to be patented that does not exist normally in nature, just like if you wanted to patent a new chemical. The problem with this in regards to genetic material is that science isn't quite up to "growing you own" DNA in that way yet (for the most part).

Patents should not be about patenting a discovery, like discovering a new species of bacteria on the ocean floor that makes gold out of seawater (extracts, whatever). You can't patent the bacterium, but you can patent the process that uses the bacterial wastes to refine the gold from that point. This is basically what the gene researchers are trying to do is to patent the bacterium, or at least the gene(s) that do the gold extraction.

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[the eric conspiracy]

I was trying to suggest that it would make sense to permit a totally unique DNA sequence to be patented that does not exist normally in nature, just like if you wanted to patent a new chemical.

You miss the point here. The PTO *IS* treating DNA like it were just another chemical.

There is a huge body of patent law and precidence covering chemicals. The ruckus is that the PTO is very much trending towards treating DNA as just another chemical, much to the dismay of the the people who seem to want to treat DNA as some special material. And the fact of the matter is that if you make a chemical in pure form where previously it only existed in nature combined with other materials or in an impure form you have made a new composition of matter under patent law. Not 'discovered' because the fact is the pure form never existed in nature. Patents cover not only molecular structures but mixtures and other compositional variations as well. It doesn't have to be a molecule. All it has to be is a new form.

A new composition is part A of getting a standard chemical patent on that composition. Part B is showing a use for that new composition.

There are MANY such patents issued every year for an amazing array of products. The PTO is just applying that to DNA.

It's classical patent law the way it has been practiced for the past 200 years. Compositon of matter patents are well established - what has got people torqued is that the PTO is applying these well established principles to DNA, which of course from a pure scientific viewpoint is just another chemical. Very important functionality, but nonetheless GATTACA which are pretty simple amino acids.

People are free to argue that DNA is special, but in order for the PTO to treat it as special there will have to be some changes in precidence or the law. Until then they are pretty much on solid legal ground to treat DNA as a chemical.

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[Teancum]

Eric,

Thank you for this discussion. And I will admit that I do need to learn a little bit more about this.

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[Anonymous Coward]

...but Taxol essentially was an herbal compound (extracted from Pacific yew bark), yet the drug company got a patent for it, until they figured out how to make tamoxifen (chemically synthesized).

I forget which company it was, though, that "discovered" taxol.

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[Teancum]

I don't want to belabor this point, but at least in theory patents are intended for inventions, not discoveries. The distinction between the two is very fuzzy at times, especially in regards to patenting chemicals.

The patent system is broke anyway, so detailing exceptions and fine points is just describing how bad it really is.

The patent holders are reasonable

[sybert]

Read the article. The patent holders have been very willing to license patents for free for the mentioned non-profit testing. Patent holders are rational, if there is value and little money they will license patents for free rather than block useful treatment. If there is money, then they will license for an affordable amount because they cannot make any money from patents if they don't license them.

This isn't free software or the third world, American consumers are quite willing and able to spend large amounts of money on patented medical products (drugs) for their health.

Re:The patent holders are reasonable

[eraserewind]

How kind of them to allow us to use human genes if there is no money in it. And how surprising that people are willing to spend money on their health.

Re:The patent holders are reasonable

[RWerp]

THEY are. Somebody else may not. Imagine a situation in which a private entepreneur, who is a bigot, patents some gene which is needed to combat AIDS. He may refuse to license the patent for research, just because he thinks AIDS is punishment from God for the sinners.

Re:The patent holders are reasonable

[samjam]

I can never figure people who go round thinking they need to enforce Gods punishments.

Sam

You may own my genes, but I'll have the last laugh

[prezkennedy.org]

I'm going to patent the concept of "self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion." Once I secure that patent I'm going to start suing people who benefit from our Sun's energy. With the shape that the Patent office is in these days, I may actually have a shot of doing it.

Reckess Endangering due to Patented Medicine

[ralatalo]

Car and Gun makers get sued because of their products, people get sued because they didn't take action that could have prevented some 'harm'

So, how long before their are law suits against the patent holders because they are "reckless endangering" people because of how they are treating the patents?

If a patient dies because they can't be given a certain treatment because of patents, I know that I would considering sueing. And I am not one of those that would considering sueing because I ordered hot coffee and got burned because I spilled it on myself.

This is where I think it will get interesting

Re:Reckess Endangering due to Patented Medicine

[mrmeval]

Patent holders being granted exclusive rights to a product method ... etc are immune from some torts

"Bob Patents Ink fails to give BF Guns a 10 gigawatt plasma pistol patent license for free so BF Guns Inc wouldn't make them and Jerry not having an effective weapon against Leechians was eaten by Leechians." In this example with current law Jerry's family cannot sue Bob or BF Guns. And if Bob drags his feet and BF Guns brings tort to force the sale of patent licenses to BF Guns and this delays production of the guns and Jerry gets eaten, Jerry's family still has no right of tort except to bring claim for wrongful death against the Leechians in Galactic court if they manage to survive the current unilateral extermination action currently underway by the Earth-Setian confederacy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/patent.html

By the way you can thank globul ogliachy building for extending the duration of patents in the US.

"""
Prior to a recent amendment prompted by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) accompanying the Uruguay Round GATT, patents were normally issued for a non-renewable period of seventeen years, measured from the date of issuance. See 154 of Title 35. Under the amended provision (which took effect June 8, 1995) the term will be twenty years measured from the date of application.
"""

Re:God and lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Because money rules, not people!

Think of the world as a big wallet, with most of the wrold's walthy wanting all of it. Everything is marketable, you, your parents, your children, all the way down to your genes. All it takes is a greedy bastard to pay for the privilege and apply the stupid patent laws that have grown up over the years.

My question is, what is more important, the health of the world, or some lawyers' fees?

What is the patent REALLY on (WAS - Re:Invalid)

[Wubby]

So, the patent is actually on the copy made via the PCR method of that particular gene sequence. Not the gene itself.

So to enforce their patent, they have to prove that an enfringer has used their method to obtain that exact sequence.

And if the sequence or the method is different, then it doesn't violate.

Does that make sense and is it correct? In that case then the patent really does seem narrow. I only worry about the method being the only one or its definition too broad. I don't know about these things, so I'm asking.

License the patent

[gokeln]

If the discovery is truly worth something in the real world, then it is worth licensing the patent-holder's property to achieve your goal. If not, then it is not.

Re:License the patent

[MrBigInThePants]

Yeah....especially if you are poor academic researcher who can barely get enough funding for that last (necessary) piece of equipment.

What a load of bollucks.

But wait, you can just go and WORK FOR A PHARMACEUTICAL company!!?? They always do super-awesome, unbiased and well funded research while always releasing data no matter what the result...*breath*

Pull your head out, these sorts of companies are making money at the expense of people's quality of life at best, and lives at worst. This is just another sad, sad brick in the wall.

Nice try , but...

[Ayaress]

They patented it, you have it. You don't have a license to have it, therefore you obviously stole it. Therefore, you in fact owe THEM money.

Hasn't the whole SCO mess taught us anything about how patents work?

Re:Nice try , but...

[obeythefist]

Well hopefully you'll have had it *before* they filed the patent, which is likely in the case of genes. This is a nice case of prior art in fact.

The only real victims are children born after the filing of these patents. Won't someone please think of the children?