Patents and Open Source Biotech

sebFlyte writes "Since Slashdot readers seem to be interesting in the issues and problems surrounding software patents, I thought they might be interested to see that Wired is running an interesting piece on patents in Biotech and the way that they can hold up important research, and how there are clear parallels with the open source software community with the way that advocates of openness are trying to solve these problems."

Comments

Interesting

[fembots]

As interesting as Slashdot readers might seem to be, haven't we talked about this already?

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the most interesting subjects in technology today.

I'd much rather read discussion on IP & biotech than Windose-still-is-insecure reposts

Nice linking

[Anonymous Coward]

Takes you to the second page of the article. For those who like to skip to the end I guess. first page

biotch?

[FFON]

am i the only one who read it as "biotch"

word

Re:biotch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes you are.

Now go get your eyes checked.

Re:biotch?

[bairy]

No you're not, I was just about to post the same comment. I thought it was a story about someone patenting attitude or something

Re:biotch?

[wan-fu]

Unfortunately, you weren't. I read it as biotch too and thought, 'woah, Patents and Open Source BEE-YATCH!'

Re:biotch?

[sik0fewl]

Haha.. I'm glad I'm not the only one. I don't think I've ever misread biotech that way. Must be my low expectations for slashdot.

Re:biotch?

[crabpeople]

yeah i read it as that too. was the only reason i was going to read the comments

Re:biotch?

[lscotte]

Ditto here.

Re:biotch?

[JThundley]

as someone who just fixed a computer with AOL on it,
me too!

Re:biotch?

[silicon not in the v]

Geez, that's crazy. I saw the same thing. "Ya know, Tux always seemed like such a nice penguin."

Re:biotch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heheh.

The first time I saw "biotch" (on a dialup BBS), I read it as "biotech". Long after I realized my mistake, it still remained an in-joke to substitute "Biotech!"

Re:biotch?

[bairy]

"The Linux Kernel is loading... why not have a spliff while you wait"

Simple solution ...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Exclude living systems and their components (e.g., genes) from the patent system. Period. End of story.

For those who whine, "But then there won't be any incentive to innovate!" ... GMAFB. Innovation in biotech (and in pretty much every technical field) is done by scientists, not moneymen. And the scientists will continue to do their jobs, whether for prestige or a desire to aid their fellow man or just out of sheer intellectual curiosity. Most of them will do it, BTW, in university labs, not corporate "R&D" shops, just the way they always have.

If the suits want to make a profit, they'll have to work a little harder to figure out how. Watch me weep in sympathy.

Re:Simple solution ...

[Antonymous Flower]

Beautiful post, man. If people don't have the natural desire to understand themselves enough to innovate in this field, to hell with 'em.. If someone discovers a way to cure me, or augment me, or terrorize the living hell out of me I don't want that technique monopolized. Call me communist, call me anarchist, call me when Microsoft wants you to install ActiveX to cure your ailments.

Re:Simple solution ...

[pbody]

Not that I'm a lover of the patent system, but the scientists do not work independently of the moneymen. Government grants only go so far, but the push to patent is VERY strong in the universities. Which personally sucks for me (my field is theoretical physics), and even though I don't do patents, but I still have to justify the work to the moneymen on a regular basis :( We're (sadly?) way past the times when a person/group who wants to do experimental work can just do their jobs without big $$ support.

Re:Simple solution ...

[tOaOMiB]

Sure, scientists will continue doing their jobs, even without monetary incentive to innovate. But who is going to pay for their reagents? New technologies like gene chips cost hundreds of dollars per chip, and you can blow through hundreds of those a week. Many of these experiments are too expensive to do in academia, and academics rely on partnerships with big pharma and biotech to get data.

Re:Simple solution ...

[e2ka]

1. A man has a right to his own life, and no man has a right to another man's. (i.e. no slavery)
2. A man must use his mind in order to survive.

Since survival is the process of maintaining life, it follows from these that a man must have the right to the products of his mind - the right to own property. The products of his mind are both material, likeusing his skills to produce goods, and non-material, such as discovering a useful new process in biotech.

The rightful purpose of the government is to protect a mans right to life, liberty, and property. To protect intellectual property, patent laws exist.

If you deny that men can own their ideas, then you deny that men can survive by ideas, and you deny the right of man to survive at all.

Re:Simple solution ...

[Neil Blender]

the scientists do not work independently of the moneymen.

This goes double for industry. You invent something, the company patents it. You might be the inventor, but the company is the assignee. It is their patent to do with what they please. I have patents in a mixture of software and biology. Where I work, and I assume it is pretty much the same in most places, if the company wants to patent it, you have no choice. I am not against patents, but if you work for a corporation and they want to patent your invention, you will have little choice other than refusing, then quiting. And even that might not be enough.

Re:Simple solution ...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, to me, this pretty much proves my point. My field is comp. bio., so I'm a little closer to the direct money flow than you are -- but honestly, neither of us should have to justify our work by next quarter's returns. Fundamentally, I believe that scientific research is a public good, like roads and national defense: it may or may not produce an immediate, quantifiable profit, but the nation as a whole (including the economy) is clearly better off when it is properly funded. In other words, yes, damn it, they should just pay us for being brilliant. ;)

Re:Simple solution ...

[Antonymous Flower]

What happens when life itself is patented? Owned by Microsoft, PicoLife or what have you.

I'd like to file a patent please. Yes, It's: "A mechanism composed of organic matter that hunts its own food, reproduces, responds to stimulus, and adapts to stimulus."

Re:Simple solution ...

[espressojim]

I think people have no idea of how much some of these processes cost, and what "high throughput" biology is all about.

Take the Hapmap project. They're aiming for 5,000,000 variants x 300 people. At a low price of say...$0.05 cents each, that's low low price of $75,000,000. The good thing is that the technology costs are going down, so they'll probably finish the whole project for closer to $50M. That doesn't count all the human labor costs, just the reagents.

What's cool is that this is essentially an open-source biology project. All the data is published on the hapmap website, free for anyone to use. The money *does* have to come from somewhere, though.

-Jim

(P.S. Look for those 500K variants on a chip this year. Cool stuff is comming. We'll have whole-genome on a chip scans soon - arguably this year depending on what you consider adequate coverage for a population.)

Re:Simple solution ...

[syphax]

2. A man must use his mind in order to survive.

So must a lion.

Since survival is the process of maintaining life, it follows from these that a man must have the right to the products of his mind - the right to own property.

This is what is known as a logical leap. Why must ownership of ideas be *exclusive*, as the parent seems to suggest (i.e. if I own an idea, you can't own the same one)? Ideas are not like diamonds; the replacement cost of sharing an idea is nil.

If you deny that men can own their ideas, then you deny that men can survive by ideas, and you deny the right of man to survive at all.

Last I checked, no lion owned a patent for "How to identify, kill, and eat aged wildebeasts," and yet somehow they are able to implement said concept and survive. Curious.

Patent and copyrights represent a pragmatic balance of power between creators and consumers, nothing more, nothing less. To the extent that they inhibit creators for borrowing from existing ideas, they can be problematic.

There are no first-principle metaphysical requirements for ownership of ideas to be exclusive, as the parent suggests.

Re:Simple solution ...

[Glyphn]

For those who whine, "But then there won't be any incentive to innovate!" ... GMAFB. Innovation in biotech (and in pretty much every technical field) is done by scientists, not moneymen. And the scientists will continue to do their jobs, whether for prestige or a desire to aid their fellow man or just out of sheer intellectual curiosity. Most of them will do it, BTW, in university labs, not corporate "R&D" shops, just the way they always have.

Universities provide a necessary infusion of discoveries and methodologies into biotech, but that's about as far as I can agree with you.

Couple of random comments:

Don't put scientists on pedestals. Scientists, collectively, are not motivated by sheer intellectual curiosity or altruism. Any number of them are conniving bastards willing to stick it to the Ph.D. next door so long as their pub gets out first or their grant gets funded. In the upper echelons of university research, the bastard to altruist ratio gets pretty high. In general, they're just human beings, no better or worse than the guy working the counter at your local convenience store.

Biotech data is expensive: Properly designed, decently powered studies often exceed the pocketbook of government funding agencies. As such, many of the academic research papers in biotech involve rehashes and re-analyses of the same data sets over and over. This is not by choice; it's simply a consequence of their being unable to do more. Industry is a major player in biotech, and has been for a very long time (can anyone say Taq polymerase?).

Re:Simple solution ...

[i_should_be_working]

yes, it does suck to have to justify all resarch and make it sound like it's going to be usefull/profitable in the near term. In my group we have to make our resarch sound like an essential step on the road to a quantum computer, but to us it's just research.

But that's different than having to worry about whether your research infringes on a patent. I think what the parent post meant was that biologists and scientists in general don't want to keep their research closed and patented in order to make money themselves (Funny how the patent pushers go on about needing patents to provide incentive and progression when scientists know that science has to be open to flourish). I guess a tough situation could arise when your funding agency or university is insisting that you get a patent when you know it will be a hindrince to your field.

So maybe there should be a law. Absolutely no patents in general blue sky research. And if that lowers funding and slows down resarch, well it won't slow it down as much as this patent problem could.

Only in some sick bizzaro world can I imagine having to stop my research because it infinged on a patent, but it actually happened to a professor at my uni. He does geological resarch and was using a method of determining the density of earth at very low depths. He uses it for basic 'what is the earth made of and what's it doing' type research, but apparently some company that prospects for oil had a very vague patent on the general method and is now trying to stop him from doing his research.

What a hateful thing

So I agree with you that big money and even big corporations sometimes have to be involved. I just wish patents weren't.

Re:Simple solution ...

[westlake]

Exclude living systems and their components (e.g., genes) from the patent system. Period. End of story.

It isn't going to happen.

The first U.S. plant patents were granted in 1930, sixteen patents were awarded posthumously to Luther Burbank, 1849-1926, the 10,000th plant patent was granted in 1997. Today in Science History

Burpee was commercially developing hybrid plant and animal stocks as early as 1876, only ten years after Mendel gave selective breeding a scientific basis.

Re:Simple solution ...

[fhic]

The parent company of the company I work for has recently developed a noninvasive screening test for colon cancer. Basically, you poop in a bucket and the poop is analyzed for fragments of RNA that are associated with cancerous cells. The company spent approximately a bazillion dollars developing this test.

So how do you let them protect their investment? The detection processes are already patented (we license them, at a cost of another bazillion dollars a year.) They can't patent the poop itself-- everyone's is different. So they patented the structure of the detectable fragments. Did they invent the fragment itself? Of course not, the cancer cells did. But they made these particular fragments incredibly valuable, in one particular context.

Do these patents prevent someone else from discovering another, equally detectable fragment? No. All it does is protect the company's investment in R&D, while still allowing them to provide a reasonable profit while providing a valuable service.

If it weren't possible to patent such things, this research would never have been done. And believe me, if you've ever had a colonoscopy, you'd be damned pleased that an alternate technology exists.

Re:Simple solution ...

[westlake]

If people don't have the natural desire to understand themselves enough to innovate in this field, to hell with 'em..

Understanding requires money, manpower, and specialized resources. We are far past the days when a man like Pasteur could make a significant advance on his own.

The Gates Foundation alone has spend over $100 million researching AIDS.

If someone discovers a way to cure me, or augment me, or terrorize the living hell out of me I don't want that technique monopolized.

But you will take the cure if you can get it. That is something I can speak to from personal experience. The drugs and technologies were there when I needed them because someone saw profit to be made in their development. I'll not complain about outliving their patents.

Re:Simple solution ...

[e2ka]

The logical leap was probably manifest in my desire not to have a long post, like this one.

Last I checked, no lion owned a patent for "How to identify, kill, and eat aged wildebeasts," and yet somehow they are able to implement said concept and survive. Curious.

A lion is physically equipped to survive in the wilderness. It is specifically suited to be able to identify, kill, and eat aged wilderbeasts. The tools it needs to do this come automatically.

A man is (on average) useless alone in the wilderness. Strand a man in the jungle and you would see just how reliant on the mind a man is to survive. There are two scenarios: either the man has the training he needs to survive in that situation, or he doesn't. But he does have one advantage over the lion: he can reason. It may be possible, for men of some intellect and resolve, to figure out how to survive by using the environment around him to find food, build tools to kill prey, or set traps, build shelter, etc.

Only if he uses his mind can he possibly survive!

A lion doesn't need patents for its simple, savage life, and unless you suggest man live in that way you learn to appreciate the purpose of patents.

Patent and copyrights represent a pragmatic balance of power between creators and consumers, nothing more, nothing less. To the extent that they inhibit creators for borrowing from existing ideas, they can be problematic.

I agree. Which is why patents and copyrights die a short time after their creator. It is the right thing to do. But my parent was suggesting that there be no patents for this area of research - and I ventured to assume for anything based on his obvious hatred for business.

There are no first-principle metaphysical requirements for ownership of ideas to be exclusive, as the parent suggests.

There is only exclusive ownership, or there is no ownership at all. (look at a nasty divorce case for examples of this) But with an idea, an idea in your mind and an idea in my mind are identical ideas. They are indistinguishable. Two diamonds are distinguishable. You can put a stamp on them: diamond1 and diamond2. Now you can own diamond1 and I can own diamond2. You can't do that with an idea and therefore to have ownership of an idea at all it has to be exclusive.

If you come up with a genuinely new idea it is yours. A man has a right to the product of his mind. (see previous) You can do what you want with it. If you want to give it away, you do so. If you want to protect your right to profit from it, you do so. When you die, your ownership of your idea should die with you.

(The extra time after death (usually short) where copyrights are still maintained makes long-term investments more practical ... but I think this gets complex)

Re:Simple solution ...

[onash]

I thought the biotech patents where given temporarily, 20 years or so, to the applicant. Not that I have formed an strong opinion on this, but for a biotech company to discover something, make an improved drug from it, get government approval of it and market it, 20 years isn't that much time, maybe max 5 years before the cheap replicas hit the market (in software, 20 years is like 5x the lifetime of a program)

The reason why I am not against biotech patents is because I see them as the drive for the market to invest its money in such a risky business. They have 20 years to make some money of it, but then their patent falls into public domain. Even though it's very sad to watch countries suffer a lot from diseases that can be cured by some expensive new drugs, I would imagine that many of these drugs wouldn't exists if the research where purely government driven.

I think we should let the biotech companies do the research in a capitalist manner, but the countries of the world shouldn't be shy to buy a lot of patented drugs for the third world countries or even buy the patent off the biotech company.

But hey, I haven't formed my opinion.. Please inform me.

Re:Simple solution ...

[pbody]

Fundamentally, I believe that scientific research is a public good

Same here. Unfortunately, the money is limited (although, where it is going to besides the public good is a whole other can of worms). I think that if we want more basic research funded (by the people and the corporations) the answer is to get better PR. This is what the APS (American Physical Society) is trying to do this year by promoting 2005 as the "World Year of Physics".

damn it, they should just pay us for being brilliant. ;)

Knowledge (K) = Power (P)
P = Work (W) / time (t)
t = money ($)

therefore ...

K = W / $

So, your salary is inversely proportional to how much you know :)

Re:Simple solution ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a complete moron. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars for Pfizer, tec. to develop a new drug. Who the fuck do you think pays those scientists. Your so-called moneymen. The stupidity of /.ers never ceases to amaze me.

Re:Simple solution ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So how much are you willing to have your taxes raised to pay for this research, and who will decide how the money is spent?

Re:Simple solution ...

[Changa_MC]

So, when a cure for AIDS is found, should Bill Gates get 1.5% of each dose sold? Or should it be made available to heal the sick, as doctors are sworn to do?

Re:Simple solution ...

[Anonymous Coward]

First Clones War, circa 2006

It has gotten to the point that every
individual will need to patent their
own DNA sequence, so that it will not
get hijacked by some biotech company.

I, for one, know that more than one of
one of me is far too much for this world.

Re:Simple solution ...

[cpt kangarooski]

it follows from these that a man must have the right to the products of his mind

Quite wrong.

You appear to claim that no one can rightfully compel another person to do or not do something. A patent is nothing other than the right to compel other people to not do something (it is not a right to do something oneself, btw).

Patent rights are not natural rights inherent to man. They're artificial, created consensually by society to serve the interests of society, and are shaped in terms of their vesting, scope, and duration, in order to so serve.

If you deny that men can own their ideas, then you deny that men can survive by ideas, and you deny the right of man to survive at all.

I deny that people can own ideas, and in fact no patent law anywhere AFAIK protects ideas.

OTOH, I am happy to state that you're an idiot.

For an interesting view on the patent system by Thomas Jefferson who had a notable role in the formation of the US and our patent system, check out his letter of 1813 to one Isaac McPherson. You can find a copy here.

It has such highlights as this:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

Of course, I'm a copyright lawyer, not a patent lawyer, but they're the same with regards to these sorts of basic principles.

Re:Simple solution ...

[0111 1110]

Just remember this cuts both ways. Don't hold your breath waiting for that cure/vaccine. If you want to get the suits at a pharma corp laughing just ask them about what cures they're working on. Now that's a good one! Hahaha.

What they spend money on are the treatments. That's where the patents really pay off. And even there they save their best treatments until the patents on the lesser ones run out in 5, I mean, 10, I mean 15, years. Only government sponsored or academic researchers work on cures. And they don't need that monopoly motivation.

If you want to motivate people with money you had better be prepared to accept all the consequences of doing so.

Re:Simple solution ...

[westlake]

So, when a cure for AIDS is found, should Bill Gates get 1.5% of each dose sold? Or should it be made available to heal the sick, as doctors are sworn to do?

The traditional Hippocratic Oath defined the responsibilites of the healer and a system of practice something like a medieval guild, in which medical knowledge is transmitted from father to son and other male apprentices. It did not require you to offer your services for free and offers no guidance on how to organize and fund research, development and manufacture that may need to draw on the talents of thousands or tens of thousands of workers outside your own profession.

Re:Simple solution ...

[westlake]

doctors almost always speak in terms of treatments, not of cures. true cures require decades to validate and are rare.

Re:Simple solution ...

[0111 1110]

Only if he uses his mind can he possibly survive!

This is also true for the lion. Make a few choice incisions in the lion's brain (yes he does have one, and it looks much like ours) and he will not be able to hunt anymore. All animals need to "reason", to think, to use logic in some way. The use of "instinct" to somehow explain all of "lower" animal behavior has been discredited for a long time now.

It certainly seems to be true that humans have certain intellectual abilities that lions do not, but that only shows that we are more intelligent. This is only a quantitative difference not a qualitative one, at least as far as any of us knows or has any evidence for.

You can't do that with an idea and therefore to have ownership of an idea at all it has to be exclusive.

The point of patents has never been to allow the ownership of an idea, but rather just of a specific mechanical invention, usually making liberal use of other people's ideas in the process. Ideas as such were never supposed to be patentable, and for good reason. The fact that the USPTO may effectively allow for the patenting of ideas is just one sign of how things have gone astray.

If you come up with a genuinely new idea it is yours.

And how exactly can you be certain that it is genuinely new? How can you be certain that no one has thought of it before you?

A man has a right to the product of his mind.

This statement is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Does this mean that if I have the same idea as someone else but 30 minutes after he does, that I have the same right to its ownership? How can anyone prove who thought of the idea first, and what is the philosophical justification for honoring whoever was first anyway? What's the big deal who was first as long as the idea was thought up independently.

You can do what you want with it.

Sure. So long as you don't try to "own it".

If you want to give it away, you do so.

Yes. We call this telling someone about it. If you don't want to give it away then DON'T TELL ANYONE.

If you want to protect your right to profit from it, you do so.

You mean the same right to profit from it that everyone else has?

When you die, your ownership of your idea should die with you.

Why? If you believe that one should truly be able to "own" an idea and prevent others from using it then why come up with the arbitrary period of one human lifetime. I could just as easily argue that as the original idea manufacturer that no one else should ever have rights to my idea.

(The extra time after death (usually short) where copyrights are still maintained makes long-term investments more practical ... but I think this gets complex)

So you are arguing here that complexity is a valid argument against it?

Re:Simple solution ...

[0111 1110]

I wasn't speaking of doctors but of scientists or more to the point of the management who decides what research those scientists will pursue. The point is not what terms they use, but the fact that any kind prevention (i.e. vaccine) or cure (i.e. killing the virus, destroying all of the cancer cells etc) is extremely unprofitable.

This is not something that these companies hide. They openly admit it. All you have to do is ask them. They are in business to make money, not to save the world. That is not their job, and they are not ashamed of that fact. Due to the existence of patents, they cannot both act responsibly toward their stockholders and pursue vaccines or cures (look it up).

If they happen to stumble upon a single use treatment (i.e. cure) in the course of looking for a longer term, more profitable version then perhaps they will choose to make it public.

However, in general, they (and their stockholders) are better off waiting for a less effective treatment as long it is the same or slightly better than any of their competitors. If they are the only ones working on it then it is financial suicide and extremely irresponsible to the shareholders to make it available (at any price). Why kill the very goose that is making you rich? Keep the goose alive. Just reduce the symptoms from its eggs. And the day after that patent expires reduce it a bit more ad infinitum.

Although cures are indeed more difficult to find than treatments, that is not the only reason they are rare. If money is truly the answer, then you had better ask the right question.

Re:Simple solution ...

[0111 1110]

They can't patent the poop itself-- everyone's is different.

Don't be so sure. With the USPTO and a good patent attorney I'd give it a 1 in 10 shot. Even with all the prior art.

Re:Simple solution ...

[Znork]

"If you deny that men can own their ideas, then you deny that men can survive by ideas, and you deny the right of man to survive at all."

You've completely misunderstood the point of patents. The point of patents is not to let someone own their own ideas, the point is to deny everyone else the right to _their_ own ideas.

So, how does your philosophy justify someone denying someone else the right to have his own ideas?

Re:Simple solution ...

[Znork]

"If it weren't possible to patent such things, this research would never have been done."

Colonoscopies take time and money, and colon cancer kills taxpayers. As it is cheaper and more resource effective to use tests on feces, it would be in the interest of both taxpayers and insurance companies to fund such research.

As it then would not be patented, it would be cheap enough for MrMuscle to add it to their toiletbowl fresheners, indicating possible colon cancer by color marking the toilet water and almost completely wiping the existence of colon cancer from the face of the earth, saving massive amounts of taxpayer and insurance money, and preventing a vast amount of undesired anal intrusions.

Oh, and dont bother trying to patent toilet bowl freshener medical tests, I'm filing that idea with my attorney as prior art.

Re:Simple solution ...

[ponos]

Understanding requires money, manpower, and specialized resources. We are far past the days when a man like Pasteur could make a significant advance on his own.

This is true, but it is a vicious circle. The cost of research has skyrocketed exactly because every research activity involves paying some bio-supplies company for patented materials and techniques. If a lab needs (say) $100000 per year to do serious research, they will patent/sell anything they can so that they can survive. Scientists themselves are not rich, usually, becauses science is about 0wning your research field (in a mature way, I suppose).

Anyway, the necessity for "money" is quite artificial and is magnified because (a) bio-sciences advance very rapidly (b) in every iteration/advance everyone tries to make up for previous research costs plus profit. The only way I can think for this to stop is if research that has been done with institutional/government funding is always released for free, thereby bringing some eqilibrium and providing low cost alternatives in the long term.

The simple fact is that medicine will become very expensive in the near future and people will rely on it to a greater extent (ageing population, better standards of health care etc). A (legislative, social, economical, ethical) solution must be found really soon.

P.

Re:Simple solution ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not patent the associated Test (The Dectation Method with the Fragment) instead the fragment?

Re:Simple solution ...

[OutHouse]

Getting a drug to market (and into the hands of the doctors and patients) is about more than research. It's about time and money: TIME: 8 - 10 YEARS!! MONEY: > $500 MILLION. For one drug.

It involves years of clinical trials, and wading through the FDA (and other governments' regs and requirements) to "prove" safety and efficacy. While the research can, indeed, be done in the university labs, in the interest of "pure science", to get a compound from the discovery stage ("Hey, look what this does") to the product stage ("Take two and call me tomorrow") is a huge, expensive undertaking. At this point, the only entities that have the resources to pursue such a course are either governments or big pharmaceutical companies. Governments aren't interested in making products; and research monies are drying up - it's become extremely difficult to get research grants funded; university researchers I know have reported that only one in five or one in eight of their proposals get funded.

The logic is that without the exclusivity afforded by a patent (or some such protection) no one could be convinced to invest 100's of millions of dollars to bring a drug candidate to market.

Maybe flame bait, but that's what it is: development is expensive, way more so than the research that found the compound.

Re:Simple solution ...

[HeyLaughingBoy]

And the scientists will continue to do their jobs

Won't they find it hard to do their jobs if, due to the inability to patent any outcome, the company eliminates said job?

It's more than just a little disingenuous to claim that the scientists are independent of "moneymen." We all need to make a living.
I do private experimentation at home on my own time, on my own dollar, but I still need a job so I have the money to buy equipment.

Re:Simple solution ...

[e2ka]

OTOH, I am happy to state that you're an idiot.

Now why would that make you happy?

Re:Simple solution ...

[Changa_MC]

"...teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning..."

Sounds like open-source medicine to me, although it is a limited license, including only those who have also taken the oath.

Charge for your services, charge for your supplies. But share medical learning with other doctors for free. And Bill Gates donated that money, so he for one agrees with me.

On a related note:

[Thud457]

Viva la revelotion , capitalist running-dog pharmacorps!

Biotech patent?

[ReeprFlame]

Ok, and how do you suppose biotech devices to be open source? Oh boy! Now we have to look forward to programmed HIV viruses...

Re:Biotech patent?

[Holi]

Ok and how do you propose the current system to be viable. When Monsanto owns all the food in the world and farmers can't grow without a license from them. I can't see that working for any length of time. It comes down to fix the problem now or deal with the utter breakdown in the future.

Re:Biotech patent?

[stratjakt]

Monsato doesn't own all the food in the world, that's ridiculous hyperbole. They have rights to a few GM crops that they invested millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours into developing.

So plant regular corn or soybeans.

Re:Biotech patent?

[Holi]

And when their seed blows into your crop (happens) they get to sue you and basically take your farm. search on Percy Schmeiser and read his story of how Monsanto pretty much ruined his farm.

Re:Biotech patent?

[QuantumRiff]

There are articles you can google for about Monsato Suing people that did use regular corn. Their neighbors bought the GM corn, and it cross polinated. And Monsato says that they have to pay because they own the patent on that type of corn. Even though the farmer never bought it.

Same thing happening in film/media

[Anonymous Coward]

Is copyright killing culture? Some documentary filmmakers certainly think so.

BSD style

[Anonymous Cowherd X]

The products themselves would be proprietary, but the techniques and components used to make them would be open to all, meaning more bio-products, competition, smaller markets and faster improvements, Jefferson said.

Basically, a BSD style license.

Ho hum

[jd]

Biotech is filled with patents and IP. There are patents for gene sequences, for chrissakes. Because patents (unlike copyright) cover even accidental duplication, this essentially is a ban on evolution. Great for the Bible Belt, but not so great for the species.

Interestingly, you can download sizable chunks of the gene sequences for cows, chickens, humans, the SARS virus... Clearly, the researchers who have made such information available are Communists, for not protecting their IP rights and demanding the first-born from all who would see such information.

Pathetic. The bulk of serious research is done in an open environment. If you want to see quality, verifiable, useful information, you don't look in the patent office. You look up the research papers that have been published and are either freely available or damn cheap.

To the best of my knowledge, the only person known to have successfully learned something from patents was Einstein. But if you look at his best work, you look at the thought experiments, the observations of the ordinary, the stuff that is simply not ownable. THAT is where Real Science and Real R&D takes place.

Re:Ho hum

[Macadamizer]

"To the best of my knowledge, the only person known to have successfully learned something from patents was Einstein."

Go look at a U.S. patent, any one, and look under the section called "references cited" -- there you will see a bunch of other patents that the current patent is "built upon."

I guess you could be cynical and say that those references are only listed so that the patent owner can later avoid an inequitable conduct charge, and to basically take those patents out of contention in the case someone tries to prove invalidity, but come on. Nobody develops anything from first principles -- everything is built upon something else. And patents, being public record, are just another starting point.

"But if you look at his best work, you look at the thought experiments, the observations of the ordinary, the stuff that is simply not ownable. THAT is where Real Science and Real R&D takes place."

True enough, if you limit the definition of "real science" to the purely theoretical sciences.

Re:Ho hum

[stygianguest]

So how long until companies start sueing people for having a baby?

Re:Ho hum

[the eric conspiracy]

There are patents for gene sequences, for chrissakes

No, there aren't. Genetic patents cover the gene PLUS some use of the gene.

ssentially is a ban on evolution.

You have no clue.

The bulk of serious research is done in an open environment.

Do you realize what a patent requires you to do? You have to publish your results in order to be granted a patent. Anyone can download your patent and us the results for further reasearch. Without the patent the researcher would have NO incentive to patent.


To the best of my knowledge, the only person known to have successfully learned something from patents was Einstein

Your knowledge of patents is pathetic.

Re:Ho hum

[jd]

No, they can't. Not without paying you oodles of cash, which is an immediate disincentive. Which is why REAL researchers publish, rather than patent. The entire Free Software/Open Source movement is a direct evolution of existing methods used by researchers to keep research free. Public Domain is the province of scientists, not corporations.

You can tell me to learn about patents, but you have much to learn about history.

Re:Ho hum

[the eric conspiracy]

No, they can't.

There is an experimental use exemption in US patent case law. So long as you don't intend to made money from the work, you can do any R&D you want and be immune from infringement claims.

REAL researchers publish, rather than patent

Have you ever been a researcher? If you had, you would know that just about all researchers file patents before they publish these days. Universities are making so much money from patent licensing that there is no place you can work that doesn't require you patent whatever you can.

Re:Ho hum

[jd]

I spent a good many years as a researcher. I was the first in the UK to have a registered IPv6 domain (I beat some Aberdeen network guys by 1 day). I've done plenty of work in themable multimedia, computer-aided learning and virtual worlds as a research tool. Also did a few years of comp sci research in support of nuclear research facilities in Britain and Australia.

So I guess I know the scene pretty well. I've never patented any work I've done, nor has anyone else I've worked with, to the best of my knowledge. Mind you, the use of a 20 MeV accelerator to do atomic mass spectrometry is not exactly something the average consumer thinks about. There are only a handful of places you can do such work, and only a handful of people who need to do it.

The same could be said of the "freed" IBM patents, though. How many people etch their own processors? Of those, how many would even find the optimizations IBM uses useful? If you're not buying a COTS processor, the odds are that you're doing something horribly specialized, in which case a generic optimization isn't going to be that useful. Competing CPU manufacturers are likely to want to differentiate their product, which means they're likely to use a different solution also.

The only people actually hurt by those patents existing were the people studying optimization techniques, because they're the only ones who would actually have needed to try the ideas out.

The "can't make money" bit is dodgy, as it's almost impossible to define what that means. Nobody "makes money" off the Linux kernel, yet SCO is able to make a court case out of alleged IP infringements. Forget the fact that there aren't any infringements, the fact that the court hasn't thrown the case - and SCO - out is proof that you can make a case for "making money" even when the damn thing is given away for free.

The system is corrupt and degenerate, offers far too little protection to those who actually need it, and far too much to those who don't, and should either be radically overhauled, replaced or dropped entirely.

As for Universities making money off IP - since when is teaching supposed to be a profit-making venture? It's about getting students to think, and once they can think, getting them to do something useful with those thoughts. It's no wonder that the US does so badly in education, compared to the rest of the world, if the faculty staff are spending all their time filing patent claims and pursuing copiers. Sheesh!

Re:Ho hum

[bit01]

If you had, you would know that just about all researchers file patents before they publish these days.

LOL! Thank you for the best laugh I've had all day.

With some honorable exceptions patents are actually a pretty good indication that the research is of little value. Most good researchers avoid patented areas like the plague. Lawyers and the patent office have an extremely biased view of the research community. Mostly, the only researchers they see are the ladder climbers who don't give a shit about the quality or otherwise of their research work and are happy to spend their time on the paperwork instead of the research, as long as they can bulk out their CV and get brownie points from university admin.

In addition patent boosters tend to forget that quality research requires the free exchange of ideas. The paperwork and lawyers associated with patents pretty much stops that cold.

If you work in an unpatented area you may be repeating another's work (remember the "re" in research) but at least you're less likely to have misguided lawyers ruining your day.

The "experimental use exception" you mention is useless. It's just too dangerous to do anything in an area where patents might be a problem and just too easy to switch to a related area.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Ho hum

[the eric conspiracy]

Most good researchers avoid patented areas like the plague.

Geez. Of course they do. Most researchers are trying to do original work. Duh.

The "experimental use exception" you mention is useless

Nah. It's a key provision of patent case law. Established by a Supreme Court decision in 1813 from what I remember.

In addition patent boosters tend to forget that quality research requires the free exchange of ideas. The paperwork and lawyers associated with patents pretty much stops that cold.

Bzzzzrt. Patents require publication. If there were no patents pretty much all research with any commercial value would be kept as trade secret and never published. Patents were instituted for the purpose of encouraging publication. Patents are in fact a contract between the inventor and government in which the inventor get a limited monopoly in exchange for publishing his discovery. The concept that patents hinder technological investment is put to lie by the fact that the institution of the technological patent in Great Britain was immediately followed by a singularity event known as the industrial revolution.

With some honorable exceptions patents are actually a pretty good indication that the research is of little value

Depends on how you judge value. If it's a case of aimless intellectual mumbly-peg being what you consider valuable, sure. If it's a case of the research actually leading to something people can use to improve their lives, then I call bullshit.

Ugh, don't get me started on patents

[Icarus1919]

It's the worst thing we're doing, allowing patents on genetic coding and other areas relating to biology. Imagine if someone discovered a gene that 100% determines whether or not a person gets alzheimers. So the person patents it and subsequently refuses to let anyone else work on drugs that would affect the protein produced by the gene. In the years before the patent expires, a cure could have already been found.

My example is poor because genes that influence alzheimers have been found already, but it's just for sake of argument.

Another example, previously featured on slashdot, is genetically modified seeds. What if seeds from a field of grain blow onto yours and you end up with the genetically modified grains or what have you, and you're sued for "stealing" it. It's an actual possibility, and it's MADNESS.

Re:Ugh, don't get me started on patents

[10101001011]

Not only is the "genetically modified corn" threat possible, it happened. IN Canada several farmers (if memory serves me right, might have been only one) was(/were) sued for growing corn that was PROPERTY OF MONSANTO(TM).

Re:Ugh, don't get me started on patents

[Holi]

Another example, previously featured on slashdot, is genetically modified seeds. What if seeds from a field of grain blow onto yours and you end up with the genetically modified grains or what have you, and you're sued for "stealing" it. It's an actual possibility, and it's MADNESS.

Not just a possibility it is happening.

Re:Ugh, don't get me started on patents

[the eric conspiracy]

Red Herring. In the case cited in your link, Monsanto actually withdrew all charges once they became convinced that the contamination was accidental.

Nobody has been able to show me a case where Monsanto has gone after a farmer after it was shown the contamination was accidental. It just hasn't happened, and is one of those urban legends that the anti-GMO crowd is using, falsely.

Re:Ugh, don't get me started on patents

[Holi]

Can you find me information on Monsanto withdrawing charges. It went to the Canadian supreme court so I have a hard time accepting this as a red herring.

Re:Ugh, don't get me started on patents

[ahsile]

Why should you be allowed to patent something that occurs naturally anyway? When are the biotech companies going to start charging me because I have brown hair, blue eyes, and fair skin with freckles; just because they own the patent to them?

DNA is an acid.

[deathcloset]

An acid is a chemical.
Chemicals cannot be patented.

What's going on here?
What am I missing?

Re:DNA is an acid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think a chemical can't be patented? Drug companies do it all the time. How do you think they protect their blockbusters?

Re:DNA is an acid.

[Icarus1919]

That's not true, every prescription drug is a chemical and they can certainly be patented. Where did you get the idea that chemicals can't be patented? Even different combinations of chemicals can be patented, take for instance sodas. All fairly simple ingredients, but clearly a patentable product.

Re:DNA is an acid.

[ryanjensen]

Chemicals can be patented ... medicines, synthetic fabrics, fuels, etc. Or do you mean "I don't think chemicals should be patentable"?

Re:DNA is an acid.

[iabervon]

"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." (USC 35 101)

Chemicals are essentially mentioned explicitly in the law as an invention patentable. Of course, a new DNA sequence isn't really a new composition of matter, although most things you can do with DNA involve the production of chemicals which might be new.

Re:DNA is an acid.

[Macadamizer]

Just a minor point, sodas (or any recipes) are not patentable. The recipe for Coke, for example, is a trade secret, not a patent.

Recipes aren't copyrightable either.

Re:DNA is an acid.

[syphax]

Dude, my grandfather is a chemical engineer and has 60+ patents. Whiteners, that ink-impregnated paper that replaced carbon paper, etc.

Re:DNA is an acid.

[the eric conspiracy]

Just a minor point, sodas (or any recipes) are not patentable

Wrong. Mixtures certainly are patentable so long as you can show they have novel properties.

Just because something isn't patented doesn't mean it can't be. In the case of Coke patenting the formula would be a dumb move since the duration of patent coverage is only 20 years. After that 20 years anyone could use the same formula. Trade secret protection has no time limit.

Re:DNA is an acid.

[the eric conspiracy]

Chemicals cannot be patented.

Wrong. Some of the most famous of all patents are on chemicals. Teflon for example.

The Patent Office is moving to use exactly the same guidelines for patenting genes as they use for all other chemicals.

Re:DNA is an acid.

[stygianguest]

Patents cannot really give one a monopoly over a chemical, rather it protects a certain use of it. For example as a medicine. So when company X discovers some new plastic (organic molecule) to build for example airplanes with and company Y discovers it heals cancer, both can have a pantent concerning the same chemical.

How that's supposed to work in genes puzzles me though.

Re:DNA is an acid.

[Macadamizer]

"Mixtures certainly are patentable so long as you can show they have novel properties."

Is 'light, crisp, refreshing' taste (I'm looking at a diet Pepsi can here) a novel property?

I guess I should have been more clear -- maybe you could, in principle, patent a soda recipe -- but how would you show that it has novel properties (beyond what you would expect a soda to have) and that it was nonobvious to one "skilled in the art?"

"Just because something isn't patented doesn't mean it can't be."

Very true.

Re:DNA is an acid.

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought it was the marketing of products which was patentable? 'Cause if that's not the case, then I call the patent on Chocolate Chip Cookies...Eat that, T[r]ollhouse!

Re:DNA is an acid.

[deathcloset]

Where did you get the idea that chemicals can't be patented?

Apparently I got the idea by not taking a chemistry course :P

Re:DNA is an acid.

[the eric conspiracy]

Is 'light, crisp, refreshing' taste (I'm looking at a diet Pepsi can here) a novel property?

Maybe, if you can show that it was unexpected or stronger than anticipated (insert your anticipation here) or whatever given the ingredients. And always remember it's ORDINARY skill in the art.

how would you show that it has novel properties (beyond what you would expect a soda to have) and that it was nonobvious to one "skilled in the art?"

When all else failed strawman comparisons with other formulations have generally worked for me when I was going after getting a patent. A big win was always finding some sort of non-linearity. Add 2x as much whatever and find that property X improved 4x. Or adding magic fairy dust, i,e. something in a very small amount that gave a big enhancement.

Re:DNA is an acid.

[back_pages]

The Patent Office is moving to use exactly the same guidelines for patenting genes as they use for all other chemicals.

Just my attempt to be informative:

The USPTO will continue to apply existing case law until an application is denied and taken to the Patent Board of Appeals or an issued patent is litigated and appealed to a higher court, whereby proper procedure (from board of appeals) or new case law (from appeals court) tells the USPTO that the old case law is inappropriate.

I've drawn plenty of ire around Slashdot for spreading hateful things like facts regarding the USPTO, and I'm deliberately not engaging in this topic (biotech is not my area of expertise), but it would be nice if the Slashdot discussion were cognizant of how the system works.

I'm not flaming or correcting you, just taking a chance to toss in my two cents.

Why is the Prez blocking funding on stem cells...

[smug_lisp_weenie]

...when we still have public funding on all this proprietary patent work? A _true_ fiscal conservative republican would funnel the country's money into development that encourages an open and competitive market place. If people want to use their own private money to gamble on patents then that's fine, but not public money!

Seems to me, we're putting money into public research that feeds private pockets in an unfair way...

Is the prez just trying to promote his religion in the guise of conservatism?

I don't know, just asking...

SUMMARY OF PROPER /. GROUPTHINK

[stratjakt]

Nothing should ever be patented, trademarked, or copyrighted.

Unless I wrote or invented it.

Re:SUMMARY OF PROPER /. GROUPTHINK

[jimicus]

I don't have mod points, so I'll bite the troll instead.

/. groupthink is only groupthink because it attracts like-minded individuals - those who think dramatically differently tend (note: not always) decide that they can't be bothered with all this nerdy-political-hippy-communist-patent rubbish, and don't spend that much time reading, much less posting to /.
I suspect (though am prepared to be proved wrong), that much of the "groupthink" is based around a few simple principles:

1. Many things are wrong with society today. (Software Patents are an example something which affects a large proportion of /. readers, and so get discussed more frequently than many other issues).
   
   1. Many /. readers don't have a solution, but feel that by airing their point of view (frequently similar to everyone elses, for reasons discussed above), they will add something useful to the discussion. Generally, most are wrong, but the mod system isn't very good at accounting for that.
      
   2. Some (many?) /. readers think they have an answer to some/all of these issues, though these vary in how well they're thought out.
      
   
   
2. I will get modded either nowhere or down, mainly because what I say here doesn't mention Natalie Portman, hot grits (wtf are hot grits anyway?) or one of the running jokes about underpants gnomes.
   

Re:SUMMARY OF PROPER /. GROUPTHINK

[Daniel Dvorkin]

By posting what you've posted, you've proven that there is no /. groupthink. Lots of people, perhaps a solid majority, may hold a certain position on a certain issue; that doesn't mean everyone here thinks exactly alike. If you believe yours is a minority viewpoint, please, by all means, post something cogent in support of it.

Re:SUMMARY OF PROPER /. GROUPTHINK

[Anonymous Coward]

Hot grits.

Re:SUMMARY OF PROPER /. GROUPTHINK

[back_pages]

Enjoy the moderation blitzkrieg for that post.

For my part, I award +1 Informative.

Re:SUMMARY OF PROPER /. GROUPTHINK

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you had posted this as an AC it might have actually counted for something.

If you are just doing a virtual mod, then I will virtually mod him down -1 overrated.

Regards,
AC.

On this issue...

[MTO_B.]

Interesting. I'd like to know what fellow slashdot users think of the World Community Grid on these bio patent issues.

OnTopic, surely?

[Morosoph]

Although I agree with AC that it's welcome variety.

living systems and their components

[oliverthered]

1 problem.

Is a Virus living?
What about bacteria?
What about the single protein that causes CJD?
What about a pint of beer, or some new way of making a plastic that uses designer bacteria in the process.

Re:living systems and their components

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Good questions. My answers would be, in order:

Viruses: maybe, maybe not, but close enough for legal purposes.

Bacteria: clearly yes.

Prions (self-reproducing proteins, such as the presumed causative agent for CJD): um, er ... let me think about that one for a while.

Pint of beer, plastic, etc.: no, and I don't have any problem with anyone patenting a specific formulation of beer or plastic or anything else. It's the yeast, bacteria, or even individual genes used in the process that IMO should be off limits for patents. Kind of like, if you use a screwdriver to build a new widget, you should be able to patent the widget -- but not the "tool for tightening of helically threaded metal attachment units" you used to build the thing.

Re:living systems and their components

[the eric conspiracy]

Is a Virus living?

No. A virus requires a cell to replicate in. A biologist would probably say the cell is the basic unit of life.

No the question is what do you mean as a 'component' of life? All organic compounds? Well, many organics are synthesized in the lab these days. Polyethylene is and organic compound. As is acetic acid, all alcohols, etc.

Clearly 'component' of life is going to be very hard to define.

Re:living systems and their components

[Keslyle]

Actually, a virus is alive. A virus fills all the criteria to be clasified as a living organism. It moves, consumes, grows, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces. But more simply, your immune system kills the (if it works right). If it is killed, then it dies, and if it dies then it had to be alive first.

Re:living systems and their components

[the eric conspiracy]

It moves, consumes, grows, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces.

Viruses fail several of these criterea.

Viruses don't reproduce. The mechanism for virus duplication involves the cell replicating the virus. Also viruses do not grow, they remain the same size as they were created for their entire life cycle. Viruses do not consume anything either - they have no metabolic cycle. No ingestion of food or excretion of waste.

Re:living systems and their components

[Idarubicin]

It moves, consumes, grows, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces.

Actually, I find it hard to say that a virus does any those things. Let's look at those in order. A virus...

...moves: If you're talking about locomotion--no, it doesn't. Viruses get pushed around passively. Once assembled and released, they float around until they hit something that sticks to their protein coat. This is not to say that locomotion is a requirement for life, but viruses don't do it.

...consumes: Again, not really. It doesn't photosynthesize. It doesn't absorb nutrients from its environment. It doesn't barbecue steak. It can hijack the machinery of a living cell to make more viruses, but I'll come back to that.

...grows: Nope. Once a virus is assembled, its size and shape remain essentially fixed. If you look at sputum from someone with a cold, you won't find little baby viruses and giant overweight viruses. Barring mutations, all the viable viruses you find will be identical. Particularly durable viruses may undergo reversible changes in shape caused by dehydration, but that's no more growth than soaking and drying a towel.

...reacts to stimuli: I don't know where this comes from. About the only 'stimulus' a virus can respond to is binding to a cell surface, in which case it fuses to the cell and dumps its genetic cargo inside. It's not much more complicated than a soap bubble 'responding' to the 'stimulus' of hitting a wall by bursting.

...and reproduces: The replication and synthesis of new viral matter (proteins and DNA or RNA) is carried out by the machinery of the host cell, not the virus. Though viruses are pretty much self-assembling once all their bits are present in a cell, this doesn't imply life either. Disturbing a supersaturated sugar solution will cause crystals of sugar to form, but even though they're highly ordered, they aren't alive. If I take a toaster to a machine shop, the guys inside can make me an identical toaster. They could even set up an assembly line and make millions of them. That doesn't make toasters alive.

But more simply, your immune system kills the[m] (if it works right). If it is killed, then it dies, and if it dies then it had to be alive first.

You're just begging the question here. The immune system recognizes viruses; it inactivates them; it digests them--but that doesn't mean that viruses have to be alive, or have to be killed. The body is capable of digesting any number of different macromolecular structures. (Are sugars alive? Naked RNA? Collagen?) Cutting a toaster into tiny pieces certainly renders it nonfunctional, but few would say it has been killed. Fewer still would suggest that it had been alive.

Re:living systems and their components

[AstroDrabb]

But more simply, your immune system kills the (if it works right). If it is killed, then it dies, and if it dies then it had to be alive first.

The human immune system "kills" many things that enter our bodies. However, I certainly wouldn't consider all of them to be "alive". I had a bad splinter once. My immune system attacked it as a foreign object. However, I wouldn't consider a piece of wood "alive". There has been many things that entered my body that my immune system "killed", that doesn't mean that what my immune system killed was "alive".

Re:living systems and their components

[extensis]

As a current Genetics student, the question is a
virus alive comes up a surprising amount in every
class (funny, the least of which in my virology
class). Each teacher lists the textbooks answers:

Can't replicate without help, have no metabolic
activity out side of the host, etc... But personally
I tend to believe viruses aren't alive for a different
reason, sort of a-slippery-slope argument,

If viruses were deemed 'alive' then we would be
forced to extend the label to other things that
are clearly (in my eyes) not alive. Things like
prions, transposons and plasmids all act like viruses

This whole discussion was only academic till patents
are brought up. Personally I do believe biological
innovation comes from money, I believe patents
need to be applied to life just like software or
velcro. If these inventions are truly novel, their
inventors deserve to benefit. So i believe viral
state of life ends up only mattering to philosophers.

Re:living systems and their components

[oliverthered]

And when I patent your genes I'll be synthesising you in a lab so I can do cosmetics experements.

It's also possible that you 'are' a virus, or at least retro viruses (that are part of your DNA) may have had some effect in human development.

Which bit of you can I patent before it becomes unacceptable?

Re:living systems and their components

[oliverthered]

1 pot of rooting hormone.+ 1 splinter = 1 tree.

If it's a willow splinter you don't even need the rooting hormone.

Re:living systems and their components

[AstroDrabb]

Are you saying that the splinter I got from working with Pine the other day was "alive"?

Re:living systems and their components

[meiocyte]

I really don't think these are good questions. The question "Is X alive?"treats life as some singular property that a thing can either have or not have. The discussion here ("X is alive if X displays the following 50 properties: blah, blah, and blah.." .. "..well, but that doesn't count as an instance of property Z, since it lacks these 10 sub-properties..") strikes me as rather medieval; we moved beyond that many years ago.

If you want to draw a line between the patentable and the unpatentable, then come up with an argument that justifies where it should be drawn. If the line happens to surround the things you call "alive", you still have to argue for why the line should be drawn there and not somewhere else. In other words, whether you refer to "life" or not, you have to say why it is that bacteria and genes should be unpatentable - so why not save a step and eliminate talk about "life"?

Re:living systems and their components

[oliverthered]

probably, it had the ability to grow into another pine tree.

that's not true.

[oliverthered]

Usually they patent the method of producing the drug not the drug itself.

Re:that's not true.

[Rich0]

Usually they patent the molecule and every conceivable use for it. Then they patent the way of making it. Then they patent its metabolites. Then they patent the idea of putting it into a red/green/white/blue/whatever pill. Then they patent new ways of prescribing it (once a week, once a month, whatever).

Blockbuster drugs earn millions of dollars PER DAY. Patent applications cost $10k or so. Trust me, they patent EVERYTHING. That way when some patent is lost on a technicality the company doesn't lose 10% of its revenue stream overnight.

Different countries have different rules, but in the US the standard patent is on the drug itself as it is used to treat some particular problem. Generic companies can't just come up with an alternative synthesis of the compound and market it themselves (otherwise there would be no brand-named drugs - trust me, if the drug is worth $1 million per day, some chemist can find another way to make it).

To the degree that the drug was genuinely discovered by the drug company and is innovative, I see no problem with this. The drug is only patented for a decade of marketable time, and then anybody can have it cheap. Sure, we can debate fine-tuning patent durations a little, or argue about me-too drugs, but true innovative drugs are a service to all of mankind, and all of mankind can certainly afford a few billion dollars in exchange.

On the other hand, many companies employ various tricks to extend patent life via technicalities. This should be harshly penalized. Fair is fair - the drug company gets obscene profits for a decade in exchange for brining life-saving medicine to the world. However, after the time is up, the medicine should belong to the world.

Only problem with this story:

[koreaman]

Biotech != Software

At first glance...

[Anonymous Coward]

Science: Patents and Open Source Biotch.

Weird?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who read the title as "Patents and Open Source, Biatch" ?

MOD PARENT +5 TROLL DAT

[Anonymous Coward]

Your money or your life

[t_allardyce]

Once again.. capitalism and peoples lives, don't mix.

Re:Why is the Prez blocking funding on stem cells.

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with saving money. It has to do with morality.

The president signed an order that federal funds will not be spent on experiments using fetal stem cells because the origin of these cells requires ending human life.

What am I missing here?

[espressojim]

Here's an article quite:
BIOS will soon launch an open-source platform that promises to free up rights to patented DNA sequences and the methods needed to manipulate biological material.

I thought you can't patent DNA sequences, only processes on sequences. Gene patents without specific purposes were thrown out years ago, weren't they?

I understand why methods are being patented. They are costly to develop. They aren't obvious. Without patents, I'm not sure what the desire is to invent a new method to cheaply assay something.

My work uses data very similar to sequence data (genotype data), and the data gathering process has become a commodity over the last few years. Everyone's developed their own machines, methodologies, and patents. You can sign up with any of these guys, and essentially the bottom line is: cents / data point. You weight that in against the size of the batches you're planning on doing over the next number of years, the reliability and service provided by the company's platform, and go.

These companies would not be innovating newer, cheaper solutions if I could just take those solutions back to the lab and they didn't earn a penny for their effort. As it is, these companies are working on slim margins, and not many of the startups are successful.

In the past, before these companies came out with their turnkey solutions, we'd have to roll our own. And that means detection systems, possibly robots, databases, protocols for chemical processes, etc.

When I worked in the lab, we did one of these, based on a paper that was published in 1999. Even standing on the back of another researcher, it took us 18 months to have a working assay system that was 'production ready' for JUST OUR LAB (granted, it's the MIT genome center, and we're a big-ass lab.) Just about the time we finished, the first decent turn key solution came out...and it was cheaper and easier than what we'd developed.

I love what I do for a living. It's a good time, and interesting work. Would I do it for free, if I had to work a normal job?

No way. This job alone takes huge amounts of time, outside research, etc to excel. If I wasn't compensated for my hard work, I'd have no time to *do* that hard work.

(given all that, we're working on open-sourcing chunks of our source code, to at least give something back to the community - but source code is the least of our assets.)

Re:What am I missing here?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can patent DNA sequences as long as you associate the sequence with a specific function. The USPTO got a little stricter on that in 2001, but I'm not sure they threw out all the patents that had already been granted. see: this newish story and this old one.

Re:What am I missing here?

[3th3rn3t]

I am really impressed. I am actively (or so i think) involved in the Bioinformatics community/research adn the amount of information that is actually shared between parties its above anything ive ever seen before.
From expression databases to DNA sequence/motif databases, almost all research teams submit their results to publicly available (free) db's that also some with FAST(A)/BLAST searching tools, also free for use. A very large number of tools covering almost every aspect of gene expression and proteins is also publicly available.
I have rarely stumbled across a piece of information, an application or particular data that i was not able to access directly. (one of these cases was simply solved by contacting the other party and just identifying my self).

Re:Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

And all he did was steal "Smith's Theory of Relativity." Yoink!

Patenting genes is a bizarre form of capitalism

[good2pets]

our bodies contain already contain all our chromosomes and genes, forcing scientists to pay a royalty to research something we already contain is the height of patent maddnesss...they didnt create something new... it would be as if columbus made people pay him and his descendents a royalty to explore the new world.

Re:Patenting genes is a bizarre form of capitalism

[pjt33]

it would be as if columbus made people pay him and his descendents a royalty to explore the new world.

No, because Columbus was the equivalent of the scientist rather than the company. His financial backers (i.e. the Spanish Crown) claimed large chunks of the New World and prohibited it from trading with nations other than Spain.

Re:Patenting genes is a bizarre form of capitalism

[westlake]

it would be as if columbus made people pay him and his descendents a royalty to explore the new world.

Columbus claimed a hereditary governorship of the new western territories under the terms of the agreement with his Spanish sponsors. That fell apart when the true dimensions of his discoveries became apparent.

DNA patent enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until they crack down on people sharing their patented DNA in anonymous P2P singles bars!

Editors cut out the last bit of submission

[FiloEleven]

sebFlyte writes "Since Slashdot readers seem to be interesting in the issues and problems surrounding software patents, I thought they might be interested to see that Wired is running an interesting piece on patents in Biotech and the way that they can hold up important research, and how there are clear parallels with the open source software community with the way that advocates of openness are trying to solve these problems."

sebFlyte continued:

It's very interesting. I'm interested to see what interesting direcitons may be taken if these patent holders are interested in furthuring this interesting branch of research for the good of humanity.

(all in good fun)

free for academic purposes?

[stygianguest]

I was probably incredibly naive to have thought that patents did not prevent scientific research. At least in centers paid by the government...

This whole patent business often make me doubt democracy where the representatives are betraying or failing us (the people) while the people (exept us?) don't notice...

Re:free for academic purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US of A is not a democracy. It is a "constitutional republic if you can keep it", as Benjamin Franklin answered when asked what kind of a government was agreed upon in 1776. The differences and difficulties, to the informed, are becoming ever more clear.

Re:free for academic purposes?

[stygianguest]

true, but I wasn't talking just about the USA...

You people are fucking idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even going to bother to try and be persuasive here. Let me just lay it on the line:

Dickcheeses, pharma companies are the ones who develop new drugs. Not university or government researchers. The industry as a whole spent well over $30 billion last year on R&D developing new drugs. That's more than the TOTAL NIH budget. If researchers discover a new molecule that looks promising as a treatment for a disease they PATENT it. Even if they don't work for a company. Why? Because they want a company to license it and make a drug out of it.

If there are no patents on the molecule NO company will touch it. That means NO drug. That means NO new cures for diseases.

It is outrageously expensive to develop a drug (estimates run from 800 million to 1.7 billion per drug.) Where is the money going to come from if there are no patents around to protect a company so it can make some money on the drug? Huh?

Patents only last 20 years. It takes 2 years to get a molecule/protein patented. It takes about ten years to develop and test a drug based on that molecule or protein. That means the company has to make all its >$1 billion back in about eight years before the patent expires and the generics take over.

This is a simple fact - if a new potential drug is not patented it will never be developed and no new CURE. Think about it, you open-source silly-people. What may work in developing software does not work in developing drugs.

Re:You people are fucking idiots

[espressojim]

Dear Dickcheese,

As someone who works as a visiting scientist in the genomics lab at the Broad Institute (think: MIT) and at harvard labs (my primary job), I can tell you something: Basic research is doing much of the research that provides first round targets for drugs.

We're the ones who do genetic studies, and find associations between mutation and phenotype. Drug companies can use these associations to target their drug development pathways.

They aren't all small molecule shotgun methods, you know?

Wait, maybe you don't.

But I must say, I find the word 'dickcheese' amusing.

Re:You people are fucking idiots

[0111 1110]

This is a simple fact - if a new potential drug is not patented it will never be developed and no new CURE.

No need to get vulgar. To the pharma corps CURE is indeed a 4 letter word. One they don't want to touch no matter how long the patents. What good does even a 20 year patent do them when everyone with the disease is cured within a couple of years? How will they pay for all of their research? And don't even mention the word VACCINE. God. Talk about a waste of their time.

So do me a favor. Next time use the correct word: TREATMENT. That's what they are after. And it's the only thing that patents encourage. As long as they have a slightly better treatment waiting in the wings when their first patent expires. And don't think for a minute that they would release it even one day before it does expire no matter what.

Patents only encourage just enough development to maximize profit. It does not encourage innovation in any sort of raw sense. At least not in a corporate environment. And once the patent has been granted it actively discourages further development for that company until that patent expires.

Re:You people are fucking idiots

[DrZZ]

As someone who works as a visiting scientist in the genomics lab at the Broad Institute (think: MIT) and at harvard labs (my primary job), I can tell you something: Basic research is doing much of the research that provides first round targets for drugs.

And that first round target is about 1% of the expense of getting a new drug to market.

Re:You people are fucking idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Guess what? I work at MIT also. Pretty damn cold in Kendall this morning too isn't? Once the Broad Institute finishes going up next to the Whitehead I'm sure you, me, and others will keep chugging along doing that great basic research we all love doing for peanuts.

As one of your other responders pointed out, the cost of the basic research we do is a tiny, tiny, percentage of the cost of getting a drug candidate to market. If there is no IP assoicated with a discovery, it does not get developed.

We've got a choice - either work within the patent system or get the government to triple or quadruple the NIH budget to pay for the cost of developing drugs. Big fat chance that is going to happen, hmmmmm?

Re:You people are fucking idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You are wrong. You live in the world of conspiracy theories. Drug companies are not in cahoots with each other to keep cures hidden. In your demented view of the world, pharma companies know so much about biology that they are good enough to cleverly shunt aside treatments which would cure a disease and only develop those which they know they can people on medication for years.

It does not work that way. Pharma and biotech compete viciously with each other to capture the largest market.

On top of this, pharma companies are very poor at picking which drug candidates to develop. This is why it costs so much money. They don't know what is going on in general biology-wise. So they ALWAYS choose to pursue the most promising treatment because they know it will likely fail anyway so they may as well give themselves the best shot to find something which at least somewhat works.

Somewhat works.

This is what they often have to settle for. It's not what they are shooting for.

If they could find a treatment for a disease which was a cure they could make a huge stack of money NOW, at the expense of their competitors, by capturing the entire market. $1 billion in the bank NOW is worth several billion acquired over a number of years.

Of course it is more comforting to believe conspiracy theories and feel superior to the greedy, even if you end up hurting people.

Re:You people are fucking idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

I also just wanted to add, even if you don't believe any of this, any of how aggressive MIT and Harvard are about protecting and developing IP associated with biology, why don't you go three buildings down from your office this morning and talk to someone at the TLO office? I'm sure they will disabuse you of a few of your views. I believe there may even be a talk or two during MIT's IAP period which may discuss some of this.

There are occasional problems with patents, but vigiorous intellectual property in general is the only current way we are going to see new cures.

And that's about all I can type before /. boots me for posting as AC.

Great Idea

[RCulpepper]

This program seems to do a good job of providing a framework for inventors/discoverers to decide what rights they can assign related to their inventions/discoveries. In many cases, though, abdicating exclusive rights to a discovery would amount to ensuring that the fruits of your research never do any actual good -- sure redundant or obvious software patents inhibit advances in computing fields. But biotech patents, even if they're based on our own DNA, are essential if any biotech-based cure is ever to make it to market.

It's one thing for a scientist (or programmer) to have donated his time and creativity and renounce the rights to patent from his discovery. It's quite another to hope that pharmaceutical companies will forfeit their rights to exclusivity, plant workers will donate their time to manufacture, shippers will donate space on their trucks, attorneys will donate their time to ensure regulatory approval, and investors will look the other way while it happens. It's fine to argue that patents hinder innovation in a lot of sectors -- but in biotech, given the expense incurred getting anything to the point where it could treat/cure anyone, GPLing a promising discovery will ensure that it will never benefit anyone.

Case in point: we've known for decades that "good" cholesterol helps cancel out bad cholesterol and prevent arterial plaque from accumulating. Why not just put "good cholesterol" in a pill? Because it's a commodity. Everyone can do it, so no one does. Instead you have drugs like statins that do the same thing in a much more roundabout way -- and everyone is worse of because of it.

Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since Slashdot readers seem to be interesting in the issues and problems surrounding software patents, I thought they might be interested to see that Wired is running an interesting piece on patents..."

So you're saying it's interesting.

Is it same ?

[karvind]

I am wondering if it will be same as making information about nuclear science all freely available and so that everyone can build nuclear power plants and decrease dependence on conventional sources.

Research in biotech is promising, but how much should be made opensource. No company is sacred and it can be misused. Biotech is another double edge sowrd which can be played either way. Do we want to find cure to deadly disease or start the next generation of bio-war ? Who should hold authority on the information and access to these ? Where should the control point be ? Shouldn't ethical issues related to science come into picture earlier ?

My personal favorite : Discovery of fire. Did we had a panel at that time where we discussed to continue using fire to cook food and keep ourselves warn. Did we stopped using fire thinking that it can be use in form of firearm ? But you don't want to give fire in everyone's hand and we know the consequences.

Freedom always comes with the price and we should evaluate it carefully.

Biotech IS like software (dna/nanomachines)

[Anonymous Coward]

Biotech is increasingly becoming like software for several reasons...
1. We are using more computer hardware and software to understand how biotech works (databases of genetics, how we use and will use computers/scanning tunneling microscopes to manipulate/simulate cellular systems), cells are the first type of nanomachines driven by dna programs.
2. The way cells and whole organisms fuction is ultimately based upon "dna based" cellular machinery which is similar to the way computer technology works.(parallels can be drawn).
3. Using nanotechnology and biotechnology in the near and long term future, we will be able to manipulate cells and ourselves by using sophisticated computer interfaces.
4. It has been allready proven that open source hardware and software approaches are superior to closed source solutions and can save resources by evolving a small amount of solutions to the given problem and can make these solutions availible to anybody to use and improve on or incorporate into other projects.
5. If open source was applied to biotech and future drug and "nanobot" solutions to problems of health etc, then we can break the hold of the drug companies and healthcare conglomerates which now control how you can (and if you can) get your medical problems fixed. The only problem I can see, is that with the cuurent "war on drugs" and the current "terrorist" mental thinking, the future possibility of nerds being able to sythesize new biotech and nanotech for themselves may be curtailed by the FDA and the FBI for drug/terrorist crimes etc. Of course, with the current example of P2P networks and an eventual very powerful nanotech desktop machines of the future, where you could build your own nanolab in your basement, the powers that be, may find it next to impossible to stop. However, if you saw recentlly of slashdot, the MIT biobricks people will not release the biobricks compiler because they are afraid of biohackers and terrorists being able to use biobricks and make nasty things, but that probally won't work in the long run as information tends to "leak out" naturally and that attitude really stops the progress of technology (its unfortunate that a group of ignorant 3rd world terrrorists can make it difficult for us nerds by limiting our access to cool new technology.)

BIIIOOOOTECH... BIIIIIIOOOOTECHH

[Meowfaceman]

BIOTECH IS GODZILLA. I wonder if anyone will know what this is from.

Re:BIIIOOOOTECH... BIIIIIIOOOOTECHH

[Macadamizer]

This is an old Sepultura song, isn't it?

Re:BIIIOOOOTECH... BIIIIIIOOOOTECHH

[LoRdTAW]

Right you are!

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the title of this post as "Patents and Open Source, Biotch"

Why not?

[Keslyle]

"But he believes human health, safety and standards of living will all suffer under the present patent structure."

I think it's about time more poeple started taking this view. I wish more would take it, and soon. I can certainly understand a large corporation's desire to protect the investment(s) they've made in researching and developing their patented material, but to do so at the cost of human lives is going too far. If they're just sitting on the patents, then I think somebody (or a few somebodies) need to be dragged down to the parking lot of their corporate office and beaten...severely. But in all fairness, I'm sure that the issue is far more complicated than it appears in the article. For instance some of the data that BIOS want's released may be integrated in less obvious ways with patented data that they aren't asking for. Discoveries are sometimes fickle like that. It's also possible that the company may already be working on similar areas of research. In a situation like that, I honestly couldn't blame the company from withholding that information. With that much rolled up in a project, it would be far beyond stupid for them to just hand all the data over to competition. I would like to think that in the case of medical research or other fields in which millions or even the whole world could benefit, companies (and people in general) would take a more benevolent attitude, but I'm trying to be realistic. Other than those, I really can't think of a good reason for them to try to fight against it. Of course, 'good reason' does not include greed, which seems to be the only motivation for anything corporations do anymore. And if you ask me, that's a LOT of what's wrong with the world today.

But if the company agrees, they could stand a lot to gain from sharing the information if they played their cards right. Strike a bargain, man. Give access to limited research personel, with the agreement that findings derived from its use be shared with the company. If the scientists don't find anything, they've not really lost anything. If they do make a breakthrough, now they have rights and access to cutting edge research and technology that they didn't even have to pay a dime for. Scientists get the credit, both get the data, and the company uses it to get money. Seems to me that everyone wins. On the side, they could probably create tax write-offs for donating to non-profit and even if they couldn't it would be great PR. "BLABLABLA Enterprises, sharing excelence for a better world..." or something like that. You know, kinda like the plastic commercials.

"Some fear that making the latest methods of genetic modification public will provide terrorists with the know-how to concoct new bioweapons in the comfort of their own garage. "Biological knowledge can be used for good or ill and unfortunately it's easier to make a biological weapon than it is defenses,"

That's a very good point that I don't think many people consider when they think of researching medicine. But it's a real threat, and certainly not something that I'd relish sharing with terrorists. So far they haven't done tinkering with things unwholesome yet (wish our governments could say the same), and that may be in part due to the advanced equipment I would imagine is necessary to manipulate something like anthrax at the genetic level. However, I still can't discount that as a legitimate concern. Restricting access would definitely cut down the risk of the information falling into the wrong hands, monitoring and other methods would also help. But nothing is going to keep a determined individual(s) from getting to something they want bad enough. Ultimately, it comes down to whether we are going to fight to help the world or let terror win by cowing us into doing nothing.

open source biotech already exists... sort of

[mulescent]

it is important to point out that the whole academic publishing endeavour is a lot like open source. when you publish something publicly, it becomes part of the public domain and therefore unpatentable by anyone. research scientists (even the ones in corporations) depend on being able to access this vast weath of knowledge

its true that the US congress has gone a bit far in extending patent rights (first drugs had 5 year patents, then 10, and now some have 15 years). this has created high drug prices and, to some extent, diminished (short term) competition between drug companies. patents are important, though, because drug companies have to profit from making drugs.

the academic scientific apparatus is very good at doing basic research but not so good at capitalizing on potential products. what we need is a sane balance between access to intellectual property and ownership rights. this balance should ultimately benefit us, the citizens (not corporations or governments)

Re:open source biotech already exists... sort of

[Anonymous Coward]

"diminished (short term) competition between drug companies."

Actually it increases competition, which is a problem because the companies are more inclined to push a drug without sufficient research to find out whether it gives the patient heart failure, as keeps happening.

Fuzzy eyes, blah.

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear, I keep reading this title as "Patents and Open Source, Beotch!"

Re:Einstein

[jd]

Actually, there wasn't much to steal. Most of relativity can be derived from very basic algebra, such as Pythagoras' Theorum. It required some novel ways of thinking, but the tools to construct Special and General Relativity are available to most schoolchildren.

Much the same could be said of Newton's/Descarte's Laws of Motion. The thinking was novel, but the constructs were very basic.

About the biggest reason the ancient Greeks didn't have all of the above, two thousand years ago, was that they weren't into experimentation. Very few practical experiments seem to have been carried out, with most of their science being based in philosophical constructs.

With no hard data to validate their theories against, they were pretty limited on how far they could have progressed. They did do some experiments, so they clearly had the concept of experimental science, they just don't seem to have thought much of it.

Quantum Mechanics, wave/particle duality, interference patterns, the Michaelson-Moreley experiment, etc, required technology that was beyond them, so those things could not have developed significantly sooner.

How does this relate to the original topic? Easy. Confining thought/research into narrow channels is what defeated the Greeks. Twice. Against the Romans and against the Christians. Narrow thinking really does kill. Bounds and limits are reasonable, but stifling thought is not. Patents are killing research, figuratively, but if allowed to continue out of control, they will kill society for real.

Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the third or fourth time BIOS has been mentioned on Slashdot, and they haven't even gotten started. Their BioForge idea is not any different from what Bioinformatics.Org has been doing for years, but BioForge has no projects -- Bioinformatics.Org has 192. And the latter has not just Open Source Software projects but Open Access databases and educational websites too.

BIOS may be somewhat different by directly addressing patents, but, again, there's not much on their website.

I've been on the Internet too much...

[Das Auge]

I read that as Patents and Open Source Biatch.

Mod down, fictional and stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe anyone could write such bs and take himself seriously.

DNA isn't hardware, either!

[Changa_MC]

DNA molecules just contain information. It requires RNA and protein to convert that information into tissue, just as it takes an optical drive and a CPU to do something with a CD. The CD is hardware, since it physically exists, but it's the information that it carries that is being patented.

Now, sure, you could argue that DNA's hardware, since it's directly interacting rather than being reinterpreted as instructions. But that just makes it firmware. It can still be re-written "on-the-fly" and you could go on living with slightly modified DNA. So the law should (and does) match the laws pertaining to software. It just happens that both sets of laws suck, though.

Headline as read by me

[Jonboy X]

Patents and Open Source, Biotch!

Here's the next question.

[oliverthered]

Given all you know about genetics.
Does a virus have the 'potential' for life, e.g. could it one day develop into a multicell organism.

Personally I take the mirror image view on life and say that everyone and thing is just a collection of particles and life is just an electro-chemical reaction.

That's why I talk to my computer, one day it will be alive.

Re:Here's the next question.

[extensis]

I like that..

Some think that all life came from some simple molecules of RNA,
Where does chemistry end, and life begin?

You are missing a lot...

[hung_himself]

Sounds like a bit of a troll to me but I'll bite.

First, noone said that scientists shouldn't be paid or even whether there should be a profit motive - that's an entire straw man - the question is whether the advancement of science is hindered or helped by the presence of patents. I would argue that patents hinder biotech and also that you can make money without patents - you just have be more clever than being the first to stake out your claim.

Let us take a look at your example - your assay procedure. From what I read, you had to spend time developing an assay system because no good commercial solutions existed. Therefore when a superior commercial solution finally came about, you conclude that patents are a good thing because they motivated the development of a better cheaper assay. Of course, had the process not been patentable you wouldn't have been that much worse off since you had your own assay anyway. Also, from what I gather, the motivation from the switch has as much to do with convenience as quality of the assay for which there would likely still be commercial turnkey solutions. Waters makes money selling HPLC systems even though HPLC is not patented because they do it better than you can. But let us say that patenting the procedure is the only way it could be made sufficiently profitable for someone to spend the time to make it work well. The downside is that no further development of the process (which may or may not have been a trivial enhancement of the open source one), without having to worry about infringements. That is a pretty big downside esp considering that their methodology was based upon the work of another publically funded researcher.

When I worked at the bench, we had to buy our Taq polymerase commercially, not because it was difficult (it was trivial) but because of the patent on the procedure. This is what I have a problem with - patents used to enforce exclusivity of procedures that any well equipped lab could otherwise do.

Now back to the profit motive. We write open source software for bioinformatics and structural biology. That doesn't mean that if it turns out to be successful that we couldn't profit off of it - as long as the software is truly useful and the ideas are truly difficult to expand upon then there will always be a demand for someone who understands it, no matter where that code is. That is, of course as long as no one is able to copy, make minor modifications, and patent the idea...

Patents and communism

[danila]

While your are reading the article on open source biotech, read another article in Wired: The Cuban Biotech Revolution. A reported Castro's quote: "What's all this about patents? You're sounding crazy! We don't like patents, remember?"

Just another gentle reminder that Open Source is indeed communist at its heart and that the principles of open scientific research, libre software and communism are generally the same.

Another quote:

"It's like Castro said: They don't really like patents. They like medicine. Cuba's drug pipeline is most interesting for what it lacks: grand-slam moneymakers, cures for baldness or impotence or wrinkles. It's all cancer therapies, AIDS medications, and vaccines against tropical diseases."

It's about helping the people, not about raising venture capital or making it big on NASDAQ.

Rebel scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

Stoopid article too. First phrase I spotted was "rebel scientists". I never read pop sci articles containing that phrase.

all biotech patents invalid

[Anonymous Coward]

all biotech patents must of course be invalid, because, as any creationist knows, the intellectual property is already owned by the great 'intelligent designer'-god-holyspirit itself. heh. (i dont know, maybe the patent office is crazy enough to be persuaded somehow...)