Slashdot Mirror
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."
Exclude living systems and their components (e.g., genes) from the patent system. Period. End of story.
... 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.
For those who whine, "But then there won't be any incentive to innovate!"
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.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Nothing should ever be patented, trademarked, or copyrighted.
Unless I wrote or invented it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Good questions. My answers would be, in order:
... let me think about that one for a while.
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
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.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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)
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.