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

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: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?