Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
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.
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
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.