Slashdot Mirror
1/5 of All Human Genes Have Been Patented
mopslik writes "A story on National Geographic News cites a study claiming that 20% of all human genes 'have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities.' While universities hold 28% of all gene-related patents, 63% belong to private firms, with a whopping 2000 patented genes (approximately 67%, or 50% total) belonging to a single firm." From the article: "You can find dozens of ways to heat a room besides the Franklin stove, but there's only one gene to make human growth hormone ... If one institution owns all the rights, it may work well to introduce a new product, but it may also block other uses, including research ..."
...just check my archives.
God.
I read
Whoops. I realized after hitting "Submit" that I had mixed the "more than 4000 genes" and "20% of 24000 genes" (=4800) in my percentages. Using 4800 as the estimated number of gene-related patents, more accurate numbers are:
Universities: 28% of all gene-related patents
4800*0.28=1344 patents held
Private firms: 63% of all gene-related patents
4800*0.63=3024 patents held
2000/3024 = 66% of all firm-held patents held by Incyte
2000/4800 = 41.6% of all gene-related patents held by Incyte (not 50% as stated)
So... which one of us meat popsicles gets to claim "prior art" first?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
God has prior art, their patents are invalid.
I thought it was a joke that you can patent genes, but I guess it's for real? Wow, that's a real shocker, but it brings up a question, how can you patent something that you didn't invent and what can you do with this patent? Does this mean that 28% of my er.. body belongs to someone else?
Basically a dumbfounded, "Wh...whaaaaat?"
The only reasonably good news is that such patents should expire, and when they do they can't be re-patented again. But given the dismal record of extending copyrights well beyond the time of anyone living today, can patents be far behind?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
How is it fair to patent a human gene? Does somebody owe royalties on the patent for the eyelash, too? Maybe I'll go patent helium, while we're at it.
It's "PLOAF," not "P-LOAF." Ask about it.
I'd call human genes a part of public domain. I'll be suing if anyone tries to patent the gene that gives me my trademark snorty laugh that the ladies love so much.
Given the amount of time it will take to really grasp how all these genes and things play together, the patents could mostly be expired by the time the innovation comes. Yeah, I know they'll extend them forever like copyrights at some point. Say it with me... P.T.O must Go. P.T.O must Go.
Somewhere in Hell....
Ring, Ring...
Hello...
Hello Satan?
Yeah...
This is God, I've got a little patent law thing I need you to look into for me...
This is such bullshit. NO ONE should have that kind of power over the human genome. That kind of power is also power over humanity, and it's future, itself.
How can anyone have a patent on a human gene? They didn't invent it! What's next I'll receive a summons in the mail for a lawsuit for using their gene without permission?
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/1 8/2018252&tid=155&tid=14
This will work until the GIAA (Genetics Industry Association of America) successfully lobbies for the GMPA (Genetic Millenium Patent Act).
...extremely high intelligence isn't patented, 'cause I'd have to start paying royalties. The /. editors are safe, though.
does this mean that people are breaking Patented laws when they have kids? How can you patent something as basic as the basis of the human body?
I'm going to patent idiocy, stupidity, and retardation. USPTO will owe me billions! Bwahahahahaha....
God claims prior art.
Isn't this whole business rather ridiculous? Last time I checked you couldn't patent feathers or sweat glands.
Skype is too convoluted... Now I'm reverse-engineering the Kyoto Protocol.
That only works if there actually is a God.
THEREFORE
The most effective thing for groups such as the EFF which oppose the abuse of intellectual property law to do would be to... throw their support behind Creationism.
The one where he blows up some credit reporting agencies offices.
I've come to wish that on the U.S. Patent Office....
Sure it won't solve the problem, hell they might even have back up files somewhere (who knows it's the federal government)....
M$ it's whats for diner!!!!!
for all the research and development, but it would also cost money to transport 1000 slaves across an ocean. Doesn't mean you can claim them just because you paid for them.
I don't mind the patents so much as long as the government intervenes and suspends the patent if things got out of hand. If there is some virus that only affects someone with a certain gene and everyone who has this gene is going to die from out outbreak, the government has a right to step in if the patent holder decides to squeeze every penny out of the patent knowing people know they'll die if they don't receive the treatment.
A good idea to patent genes. Let's think of what other things that already exist can be patented. Has anyone patented breasts yet? Cause I think they're the next big thing.
Coding Blog
What ever happened to the idea that you can't patent facts? Discovering WHAT they do doesn't mean you invented them.
If I discover a new element, can I patent it? Can you imagine if someone patented, say, Gold?
Do I violate their patent by copying my genes? I don't understand the concept. I don't think I'm stupid but I can't see how people can support the idea of patenting a series of neucleotides which have been produced by humans for thousands of years. What's really being pattented here?
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
My genes are worthless. I was impotent by the time I was 35.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
In a 100 years, all those patents will become public domain.
Oh, I forgot, I'll be dead by then.
But I PAID for those Levis!
Jan 16th, 2020: Microsoft announces the acquisition of the last independent company owning gene patents. It is official that everyone is now belong to Microsoft. On a serious note... there is always that possiblity that a single company acquires an almost complete ownership of the patents. And no anti-trust law prevents registering/owning patents. As genetic solutions to medical problems increasingly becomes The Future humanity itself may find itself threatened by a single company's financial greed.
Pfizer own the gene that makes your penis hard?
TAHT'S WHY I'M PORTING MYSELF TO A SILICON BASED LIFE FORM! WHO'S WITH ME?
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
I rank this up with selling plots of land on the moon.
I file it under a mental file called 'stfu and go away'.
I have a huge problem with patenting what is essentially natural data. How is patenting the human genome different from patenting a constellation of stars or the contour of a coastline. How about the optical emission spectrum of hydrogen? I could go on...
I know the logic: gene patents will spur drug development! This is idiotic. The demand to CURE DISEASE should drive drug development. Making huge swaths of the human genome off limits to everyone but the patent holder will hinder, not help drug research.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
In the United States, business firms patent you!
Submitter should have read the story.
... these rights exclude us from using our genes for those purposes that are covered in the patent," she said.
"While this does not quite boil down to [the patent holders] owning our genes
It's the application of the gene that's patented, not the gene itself.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I could have sworn that I was open source. I'll have to go through my memory box and find my EULA.
Hopefully they'll hurry up and patent the remaining genes. The more idiotic this becomes the shorter the lifespan of the USPTO will be.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Hey. It looks there are two genes ... GH1 and GH2.
...
Some cut'n'pastes from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/
Official Symbol: GH1 and Name: growth hormone 1 [Homo sapiens]
Other Aliases: HGNC:4261, GH, GH-N, GHN, hGH-N
Other Designations: pituitary growth hormone
Chromosome: 17; Location: 17q24.2
GeneID: 2688
Official Symbol: GH2 and Name: growth hormone 2 [Homo sapiens]
Other Aliases: HGNC:4262, GH-V, GHL, GHV, hGH-V
Other Designations: placenta-specific growth hormone; placental-specific growth hormone
Chromosome: 17; Location: 17q24.2
GeneID: 2689
I wonder if individuals could be sued for gene piracy after their treatment...
God, aka "The Supreme Being", "The Intelligent Designer" and "Don't Fuck With Me Pip-Squeaks" recently filed claim in federal court for patent infringement. He/She/It/They claim that patents regarding the human genome violate He/She/It/Their's intellectual property laws.
"Good grief, you little monkeys are an annoying lot," God was quoted as saying. "Between this and that jackass Jack Thompson, I'm going to have to fire up another hurricane."
Comments from the defendants were not returned at the time of this filing, as they had all turned to salt.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
What would really suck would be if Congress decided to make patents into a permanent entitlement, they way they've been doing with copyrights.
Find free books.
You see, I've already patented the asshole... and these people are clearly violating my patent!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
We can't use God's archives. "Separation of Church and State" and all that.
The fossil record however, might be usable.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Could I patent just that pattern? Or does it have to be a complete gene?
Live forever, or die trying.
So, wouldn't these be patents for processes of altering DNA sequences in a certain manner to produce a certain effect in the body. I'm pretty sure you can't simply patent the letters and stake out certain portians of the human genome like it was some old west gold rush.
Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14 percent of all people know that. --Homer Simpson
uh oh, I think I'm illegely using most of those patented genes.
This article was up on /. a few weeks ago, but seeing this healine, it's probably good to relink for those interested
The Law of Unintended Consequences
I stole this
In Soviet Russia, genes patent you
the sooner they do it the sooner we 'get them back' after 20 years.
Does anyone know if these patents cover genes (a particular location on the DNA) or alleles (a specific variant that this found for some gene)? If the patent covers a specific DNA sequence, then it is an allele. If it covers an allele, then the number of possible patents is much larger than the number of genes.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
and patent my remaining 4/5 before someone else does.
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
Unfortunately, I'll first have to get rid of this Slashdotter aura.
s/God/nature
If this works, then I can patent a wood and then sue all homebuilders....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I have never understood how anyone can patent the human genome. I mean does this mean that we'll need to get a license to have sex or risk patent infringement?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Who has the patent on the "stupid" gene, and can we get the FDA to ban it?
So what will someone charge per hour now for me to get into their genes?
Have Gene Simmons, Gene Hackman and Gene Wilder been reached for comment?
Thank you, thank you. Remeber to tip the cocktail waitresses well, folks. They don't wear those skimpy outfits for nothing.
I thought genes couldn't be patented in America due to the 13th Amendment (no slavery, people can't be owned). Are they actually patenting genes, or just the technology surrounding the discovery and implementation of technologies affecting specific genes? That would be more reasonable.
If they can patent individual genes then I'm going to go one step farther, and patent the element Carbon. That way I have a patent on all known life, and will be able to bring in licensing fees forever...brilliant! Seriously though, how broken is the patent system when naturally occuring patterns of proteins, present in the majority of humans, can be patented?
If there is anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot now.
With luck, we might get all human genes patented in the next couple of years. That means that within 20 years, every human gene will be free game for companies to work with, develop treatments with etc. etc. Companies can even do their work now, and just hold it for 20 years. Expect a huge cornucopia of medical advancements in two decades!
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I have faith in the bickering of nations, this is not going to be a problem for people in general, but is likely to be one for the US. If the US ends up patenting all of the genes in the human body (colleges/private firms/etc.) Europe/China/Whoever will not be likely to pay the US companies for the right to research them and create products based on the genes. All this will mean is that when the best research minds start leaving to work in a country with a more sensible patent structure, the US will just have to scramble to overturn their corrupt, special interest laws.
I'm not saying I'm not dissapointed in the low-lifes we have dictating our patent procedures, but I think the system will correct itself, it will just be a costly lesson.
...we can sue the people who own the patents on genes that cause various diseases such as diabetes, cancer and other hereditary conditions.
So they've patented them. It will be expensive *if* someone manages to make something useful out of the knowledge in the next 20 years, unless we stupidly allow patent timeframes to be extended. Otherwise, they've more or less guaranteed that all of this will be public domain by the time we're actually roughly ready to be able to truly and efficiently use it.
I will say that allowing them to patent it in the first place is pretty damn stupid. If they had done something new and innovative with it, then grudingly I could maybe agree. But certainly not for just discovering it. Although I do suppose if you follow patent law to it's logical end it is promoting further invention and innovation, and it's not like they have a long term lock (20 years is short compared to copyright).
Patent law is one of the areas of the so called IP regime that isn't as badly screwed up. It still has it's issues, but not as egregiously out of balance as copyright.
Patents, great, I'd love a good lawyer to shake one of them down:
Lawyer: 'So, when and how did you invent this gene?'
Holder: 'Uh, well, uh, we more sorta found it, y'know, in us.'
Lawyer: 'Oh, and how did you find it?'
Holder: 'Uh, with some techniques invented by someone else.'
Lawyer: 'Oh right, and these techniques are only available to you, and not used by other experts in the field?'
Holder: 'Uh, not really, almost everyone's doing it now.'
Lawyer: 'Right..'
What's a patent again?
...an Englishman in London.
First of all, I don't think anyone is suggesting (or any court would uphold) that you need a license to your own genes. Instead, what is patented is the use of the gene in commercial processes. For example, my sister uses insulin made in such a way, and that this insulin is available is a Good Thing.
Second, take a look at the long view. A patent expires after 26 years. But 27 years from now we will still have the genuine innovation that the patents encouraged. The bottom line is that biotech is expensive to conduct, and these discoveries are not (so far as I can tell, but I'm no biologist) obvious. They required a lot of work, and a lot of expense. Commercializing them to develop new drugs requires even more work and even more expense. A patent ensures that as soon as the research is published (and peer-reviewed) it's not hijaaked by another company.
This doesn't mean that companies should be given a free hand on biotech patents, exploiting their monopoly charging exhorbitant rates to get maassive returns on investment for their shareholders to the detriment of the common good-but that genetic patents are not really the same problem as software patents, nor are they the same problem as copyright.
Something to think about. I'll take my thrashing now.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
So this means that every time I spank the monkey, I'm committing hundreds of millions of acts of patent violation?
It violates the DMCA. Make sure you have a written letter of permission from Humana, Monsanto, and (just to be safe) your mother.
I'm a walking patent violation!
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
This is retarded. It may be good for business, but no big genetics firm should have the right to copy say, my brown eyes or tendency to develop high cholesterol. NONE. They have as much legitimancy here as Paris Hilton does with "That's Hot." So unfortunately, it looks like very much where it counts.
cause the government already owns our butts!
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
I've got news for you: it's not your laugh that the ladies love so much, it's the bulge in your pants! No, not THAT one... it's your wallet!
Patents expire in twenty years, so all these patents will be null and void within the next two decades.
Copyrights, however, persist for life + 70 years: and genes that are "genetically altered" will probably count as "a work of art" to some sufficiently well paid judge somewhere. Then they'll last 100 years or so, and by then, the copyright laws can be extended to 200 years or more...
Remember, in a free country, you're allowed to own all the rights you can buy, and these corporations are just taking advantage of the free market.
The specific application (and its derivatives) mentioned in the patent application. This is probably what you meant by "the application", but I just wanted to make sure everyone else understood the added distinction.
I can't believe how many people are talking about it as if they actually own patents on the genes themselves. A few of them were definitely funny, but there are way too many.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Imagine when they go from algorithm patents to look-and-feel copyrights!
"Dear Mr. Smith,
We regret to inform you physical appearance violates our copyright on olive-skinned (skincolor index: 984adb3e), dark-haired (haircolor index: 12231ec3), males (gender index: 1).
Fortunately, you are able to lease the rights from us at a monthly rate. Please contact our office to discuss payment arrangements at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Big BioCorp"
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
o maybe it is just a hoax...
All your penis are belong to us!
Dear Human being,
It has recently come to our attention that you are, merely by existing as a live human, infringing on several of our client's patents. Specifically, the production in your body, of human growth hormone, adrenaline, testosterone or estrogen, adenosine triphosphate, and insulin are all in violation of one or more patents and other intellectual property owned by our clients.
If you don't immediately stop producing these compounds, we will pursue further legal remedies.
These may involve tripe damages now that you are knowingly infringing on our client's IP rights.
Please have your executor or next of kin inform us in writing once you are in compliance with the intellectual property laws of this great nation.
Regards
Robert Dewey,
Sr. Partner,
Dewey, Cheatham & Howe,
Attourneys at Law.
Ian Ameline
Making the US healthcare industry and supporting industries a private, for profit enterprise was an epic disaster, particularly in the department of research and IP. Companies will only pursue solutions to medical problems they think they will be able to have exclusive control over, in order to ensure they can profit from them. PROFIT??? This is people's HEALTH we are talking about here! Profit shouldn't even be part of this discussion. It's about the people you are trying to help, period. End of discussion. Motivation problem solved. The only questions should be 1) what holds the best promise for helping people 2) how do we produce it safely and 3) how do we produce it inexpensively. National ownership and public right to all medical information should be an absolute no brainer. Don't give them the excuse of needing to make up research costs to have high prices. Fund all medical research Federally, and base it solely on potential healing merit and educational benefit. Peoples' health should not have a price tag on it - people are the only reason a society exists at all. That's like saying its not cost effective to evacuate poor people from a potential disaster area, since they aren't important to the economy and are easily replaced. (Note to the hysterical - that's an example of an argument as wrong on as many levels as I could make it wrong, not an actual argument I'm making.) We don't stand for that, and I don't think we should stand for medical research and production costs being dictated by profit potential analysis.
r ch_near_standstill_for_childhood_cancer_drugsp ?scntid=31720021644339&contenttype=PARA&
I have heard the arguments before that medical research moves faster because of the profit motive, but I don't believe it and would have to see hard evidence to believe it. Medical research is like anything else - individuals are motivated by a paycheck and perhaps the chances to help people/do interesting work. COMPANIES are motivated by profits, and I don't believe corporate thinking has been a net positive to the medical world in any sense. Quite the reverse, actually.
I don't know how I could sleep nights knowing I ran a company that had (for example) decided to pursue less promising but potentially profitable cures instead of building off of public domain but very promising work. As a human being it would haunt me.
Here are some examples of profit-motive-as-only-motive issues (I'm sure many more could be found in a few minutes):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/acs/20050928/hl_acs/resea
http://www.accessmed-msf.org/prod/publications.as
And now patenting genes. Great. In case there weren't enough issues out there slowing things up, we now add potential patent litigation as yet another reason not to pursue ideas. Because, thanks to the profit motive we know that barring enormous financial resources people will avoid these areas rather than risk having to fork out for patent licensing fees. What a messed up system. Personally I think the nation's system needs to be totally ripped out, all the way from the admistrative system to the drug companies, and redone with one and ONLY one focus - how can they help those who need it. Individuals working in the system can still be paid well - individual incentive is fine since it draws smart people, but the companies contribute nothing beneficial to the people needing help and should be cut out of the loop.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I thought the Human Genome Project was the group who first mapped all our genes? If they did this, then how can another group come along and patent it?
Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
Your comment almost made me laugh until I crapped my pants. But then I remembered that someone else owns the patents for the genes that govern sense of humor and incontinence. Too bad.
Transistors and Beer!!
The U.S. government is for sale to whomever has money: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government
Not only are they breaking prostitution laws, but they are also violating patents as well!
'nuff said...
...I was imagining Natalie Portman.
If they patented part of *my* gene after my date of birth I'm sueing!
50 billion to me!
The genes aren't patented.
Manipulation of a particular genetic sequence to cause a reaction is patentable.
I don't really understand how though, to myself turning off the eating gene is a pretty obvious way to help someone lose weight.
pending patent applications:
1. system of repulsing adjacent subatomic particles to prevent implosion into sigularities
2. system of attracting adjacent subatomic particles to form various cohesive nuclei
3. system of attracting or repulsing mass based on like/unlike "charge" property
4. system of attracting mass based on quantity of mass, distance and gravitational constant of the universe (per "Q":)
BWAH HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!
all your forces are belong to ME!!!!!
Dear Sir or Madame,
You have been sued in US Federal Court for violating GiantAssMunch's patent on the gene for red hair. As you were born with this gene, we are willing to settle your case for merely your life savings. We would prefer this not go to trial, but if you leave us with no alternative we will ask a court to provide us with a perliminary injunction against your life.
We look forward to hearing from you.
*You can't patent discoveries! They aren't inventions if they naturally occur!
Now any woman that wants to have my baby will have to purchase a license as well as my normal 'stud fee'.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The name "gene patents" is a bit hysterical. The USPTO Guidelines say, "If a patent application discloses only nucleic acid molecular structure for a newly discovered gene, and no utility for the claimed isolated gene, the claimed invention is not patentable. But when the inventor also discloses how to use the purified gene isolated from its natural state, the application satisfies the ``utility'' requirement. That is, where the application discloses a specific, substantial, and credible utility for the claimed isolated and purified gene, the isolated and purified gene composition may be patentable."
So it's not just the DNA sequence that they're patenting; it's the DNA sequence plus a description of how to use it. Not just your body using it, but a technological invention outside your body.
It still seems like an awful lot of store to give away. The idea is that isolating and understanding the functions of genes is expensive, so to encourage people to do it they're giving away rights to use the results of that research (i.e. more than just props for being the first to describe it.)
But no, you can't sue somebody for having children; the use of the gene in its natural state (i.e. you) isn't patentable. Producing the same chemical as a medicine is There's a long history of getting patents on stuff you find in nature and putting a use to it; they cite a patent on adrenaline. You didn't lose right right to get excited, but you couldn't bottle up the output of your adrenal gland without coming up against their patent.
I'm not defending it; I'm just explaining it.
Oblig. clever Onion reference:
Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
$8.95/mo web hosting
How can you patent genes? This is idiotic! It's like claiming stars... China gets Betelgeuse and we get Alpha Centauri... Write your congressmen. Tell them to support getting rid of gene patents. What's the worst that could happen? Properly document your gene and everyone wins. How long until scientists consider themselves mercenaries, not researchers for the good of humanity? Has it already happened??
"MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
Would be nice to see painted in the front door of one of this companies something like "All your genes are belong to us"
So does this mean that I am infringing on their intellectual property by manufacturing proteins and carrying out other biological activities?
Why wait for the legislation? Why not just sue every damn human being on the planet for infringing on patents by using these 'patented genes'? Hell, sue the bacteria, they're by far greater in numbers...
You know the RIAA would do it in their position...
They can have my NF2 gene http://nf2crew.org/, either that or fix the shitty one I got ...
These types of frivolous patents just may bring down international patent law. Such patents should be ignored, and will be ignored by many countries when they need to do something with them.
Fortunately, patents are time-limited (and cross your fingers they'll continue to be). By the time anyone finds a use for most of these, the patents will have expired. In fact, why not just patent all of them now to start the clock running, so that by the time I get old and actually need one of these genes to extend my life or whatever, we'll be over and done with this nonsense, and I won't have to pay some extortionary fee for it.
...and thymine and guanine and...
This is as stupid as the companies which manufacture the Genetically Modified corns (and other plants). They end up going after some farmer who plants another corn crop adjacent to the field with the GM corn. The reasoning is that the pollen (carried by the WIND) which goes into the other corn field produces their "super corn" and therefore charge them for it...
Even though there is NO way for them to stop it...
Oh well...
I do, however, think that the PROCESS that a company used to decifer the genetic material is patentable (provided they are specific in their methodology), but that is about it... I remember hearing about these stupid patents about 2 to 3 years ago, and thinking to myself "you have GOT to be KIDDING".
Nope...
The patents basically mean that for the next 20 years, nobody else can even do research on the patent without the permission of the patent holder.
The patent holder will only give that permission if the people doing the research sign over patent rights to the company owning the original patent.
Effectively, a lot of research is going to take at least 40 years to happen, with the results being patented out to 60 years. That's when you may start seeing useful stuff finally making it into the public domain.
That is, of course, provided that other nations give a damn; US patents are valid only in the US, and there are about 150 other nations to choose from where you can do research and treat patients. In many of those, patenting genes is either impossible, or they are considered too small right now to bother patenting in.
RE: "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
FYI, the genes that create arms are now the property of Sybiotic Genes Operations (SGO) based in Lindon, Utah. While people who currently have arms will be allowd to keep and bear them (According the Constitution) the SGO Group asks that all people who are currently in the process of growing arms (infants and children) pay a reasonable licensing fee for the use of the genes used to grow said arms.
-All you genes are belong to us!
-Somebody set us up the patent!
God: Uh, you know I invented the human genome right after I created the rest of the cosmos.
Patent Officer: (Head down scribbling.) Did you file the proper paperwork?
God: No.
Patent Officer: (Head still down.) Sorry. I can't help you. Perhaps you can purchase a license from the patent holders.
God: (Turns around and leaves.)
All fades out...forever...
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
I'm a fourth year molecular biology grad student, and the proteins I've chosen to study have been limited to only my imagination. I don't understand the business end of this prospect. Just last week I read that a certain protein is not expressed in the cell line I'm studying. To obtain that protein, I had the freedom to purchase the gene ligated into a commercial plasmid from a number of companies. But since the cDNA of this protein could fairly easily be amplified from any donor tissue, how can a company with a patent stop me from using it?
As a scientist, am I supposed to pay somebody to use it? I don't think so.
Though the article isn't clear about it, I think this only applies to people who intend to use certain genes for bioremediative therapy of some sort - for profit. This does not seem to affect the scores of scientists researching the patented genes. So research won't slow down, but the marketplace for any beneficial applications might. (But with the lag of the FDA anyway, what else is new?)
This is 'Q', I'm infuriated by this dubious patent claims on what no one invented. Hell what, this whole universe/life thing was an experiment for fun. Looks like living creatures (especially this runaway life form who call themselves humans) are taking it a bit too far. Time I stop this experiment; before it gets out of control. Remember what started it all? a big Bang? Thing we need a big Bust or another Bang or lots o'em. Can't you see and learn from the other creatures and shuddup! Bah!! I'll attend to this in the next few eons. There's Picard, Janeway and lots more to come; but wait, you still haven't Nuked each other ... and WWars are my speciality.
If gene patents are allowed why not allow patents for all naturally occuring non-invented things? I would like to patent granite and sand please, oh and air too please.
I remember an english class way back in my school days where we discussed how often people get these two terms mixed up. For example: Columbus disovered America; he did not invent America. Ben Franklin disovered electricity, but did not invent it. (Really bad example as I'm pretty sure people already knew about electricity, but in US schools Americans invented everything :-))
You can discover Human Genes, but you don't invent them since they already exist. So what gives here? Is this something more alarming than the normal patent insanity? Should I file my patent on "breathing oxygen" tomorrow?
Think Deeply.
1.) Patent oxygen
2.) Make people pay me to breathe
3.) Profit!!!
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
An article about patenting genes without mentioning a single patent number! Anyone have a number? There are over 86000 patents containing the term gene...
Says the PTO:
\/\/3 0wn j00!
"All Your Base-Pair Are Belong To Us"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
"Researchers can patent genes because they are potentially valuable research tools"...
Uh, yeah
BECAUSE THAT WOULD FRIGGIN END ALL OTHER PROGRESS YOU R E T A R D S.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
all you wankers are gonna have to pay up??
Is the story really news?
In some areas, it's very cheap to come up with ideas, and thus patents, but difficult to invent useful things.
But the good thing is that patents expire, thus in 20 years the patents have expired and institutes will be able to do research without needing five patent lawyers for each reseacher.
So this engineer that did many fabulous things in his lifetime (maybe he patented some stuff?) dies and goes up to the Gates of Heaven. When he arrives St. Peter looks him up and can't find his name! "Sorry you're going to have to go to Hell"
:) (Btw this joke was told to me by my uncle who is an engineer married to a lawyer)
So the engineer is in Hell for a while and realizing that it is quite hot, he starts doing something about it. He developes airconditioning. He installs it first for himself, but then for many other damned souls. Once he has done this he moves on to make Hell a more pleasant place, designing parks with fountains, putting in water fountains. All in all, Hell is starting to be a pretty damn pleasant place.
Of course God looks down and is totally baffled by what is happening, Hell should be terrible! He summons Satan forth and proceeds to interrogate him.
"What is going on?"
"This engineer is doing great things."
"Well he is obviously a good person, let me check something"
So God goes to St. Peter and asks him why this engineer is not in Heaven. So St. Peter checks his books and realizes he sent the engineer to Hell by accident.
So God goes back to the Devil and says "He belongs to me return him at once!"
Of course the Devil refuses "Hell Naw"
God proclaims: "Give him back or I'll SUE!"
The Devil replies with a smirk: "How are you gonna do that? You don't have any Lawyers!"
Its long, but I think its kinda relevant
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
Come one, God, I know You have something to say about this! I also know You have a Slashdot account, since I was told the name was used when I tried to make one for You!
I don't understand why, in today's CG special-effects happy Hollywood, they chose to have a real person play a computer game character.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
From the article:
Gene patents give their owners property rights over gene sequences--for example in a diagnostic test, as a test for the efficacy of a new drug, or in the production of therapeutic proteins," Murray said
So what they are really doing is patenting a use for the gene. Typical uses for that gene, such as normal function in your body, would not be patentable.
The problem with the article as it was posted is that it basically reads as:
Companies patent hammer. Actually what is being patented is a novel use of a hammer. Discuss the appropriateness of that all you want. But your question drives at the heart of what is important here - just what are we discussing.
Jack
Ok, So does this mean that in order to have Children, I need to pay royalty to a number (or all) of these firms/universities? Oops, did I say that out loud?
One day the US is going to learn... if you can't play nice, then no one will want to play with you.
In other words, if US patents are found to be too stifling for the rest of the world, they will be ignored - to the detriment of the US I might add.
Consider this. If biotech firms were unable to patent gene detection schemes, then they would just keep the gene detection scheme as a trade secret forever. To patent it, they have to describe it, and once the patent runs out in 17 years tops, the description becomes property of the public domain.
It's almost like someone designed this system to encourage the "advancement of the arts and sciences..." Whoever did that must have been a smart cookie.
Microsoft today acquired Incyte for an undisclosed amount of money. When asked for comments, Bill Gates was only heard to be muttering something about the "8.5% left before all your base are belong to us". Ballmer was downright giddy to reporters, stating that when Microsoft gained majority control of all people, Slashdotters would be restricted from chair-throwing comments.
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
Looking out my office window out towards the MS River after reading this story gives me an idea. I should patent rivers. I mean really, if natural discoveries can be patened, why shouldn't I get in on it? It's not like Hernando Desoto bothered to patent it. And why stop at rivers? I could patent the water that flows in them.
Let's see Microsoft top that with a XML patent. A patent on water would be a huge bargaining chip, don't you think? Are you thirsty Bill?
This could be so profitable...
(running to the patent office before someone patents oxygen)
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
While I strongly agree that the patent process here (like many other places - patents in this area often remind of me of software patents) is being horribly abused, there ARE some potential non-obvious uses for gene sequences besides making proteins.
Antisense RNA therapy, for example (put simply, it's a way of performing a denial-of-service attack against the expression of a particular gene - handy if the gene in question is one that causes, say, growth of a cancerous tumor.)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Where were all the "Intelligent Design" Republicans during this? If there's a designer, then it's all prior art, so why isn't the GOP stepping up to the plate on this?
we are patenting the laboratory copy of that thing.
I didn't think you could patent copies of things. I thought it had to be an actual invention, and they can't really say that they have invented anything.
It just doesn't seem right.
Patents don't stop the progress of knowledge by third parties: according to patent law, universities can still do research using patented methods. They just can't sell it.
Also, I would suspect that most of these patents will thankfully expire long before anyone has any real use for them.
Originally patents were created for mechanical inventions, and designed to protect the creator. The notion that someone can patent software is absurd. Copyright your code sure, patent, no. Patenting a train of thought, or writings, is stupid. Soon we will be seeing companies trying to patent every word in the English dictionary, and idiots defending them saying its their "trademark"... blah blah blah.
A legitimate patent on DNA can only be filed by its creator... since science believes in evolution they are out of luck, the rest of the world can look to God and Allah. If you want to stretch it you could say the first people to use the DNA, and I don't see Adam or Eve's names anywhere on the patent.
have a saucy Ramendan
tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
wake up the public and chuck the whole "intellectual property" garbage out of the window.
it's crap like this that may finally make people realize just what the hell all this patent/copyright/trademark nonsense is really about.
people don't "understand" digital rights. but they sure as hell know their body and its blueprints belong to no one, especially not some soul sucking corporation.
hallelujah, we're well on our way now.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
You might want to ask Percy Schmeiser how that one holds up in court.
Pretty soon the RIAA really will own you! or better yet... In Soviet ____, you don't own the companies, they own you!
Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
They plurted or came clawing through their own Mothers and Grandmothers.
Grandma Jeanne and Grandpa Monroe were just doing what came naturally, as their Grandparents did.
None of them crafted or came up with anything. The whole "God" thing is not to say "He" did it with "His" hands, but that said prior art is "God".
This is past the point of rediculous, I mean come on, today Patent Lawyers are the worse than ambulance chasers.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
But other parts of the world aren't obligated to recognize a US corps. patent. Thus we are really only shooting ourselves in the foot, while companies in other parts of the world have free reign to invest in gene research without paying a gatekeeper.
No sig for you!!
How hard would it be to patent the rest of it in one fell swoop? Just attach a copy of the remaining human genome as a prototype and roughly describe what it does, in broad, overreaching terms because you don't understand it all yet. Leave it to the courts figure out what your patent really covers.
Patenting genes is plausible. Genes are blueprints that code for protein that can be use in medicine. Insulin is a good example of a drug derived from genetic engineering. Moreover, it is theoretically possible to design DNA sequences to created any type of protein analgous to software writing. The latter is not as practical at this time as the former. With the amount time, effort, and money expended into identifying genes, patents should be issue for that were design by natural selection so as a way to stimulate further gene research. To tackle today's diseases, we need that to know those sequences.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Here is an example of a "Gene Patent" Nucleotide sequences which code for the menE gene, United States Patent 6946271.
It really looks like most of the claims are about the sequence, not any particular utility for it! Of course, it does say what the proteins that the sequence codes for is and does.
1) find the gene that makes people want to patent genes. 2) patent it 3) use that patent judiciously 4) problem solved!
so if I understand you correctly they're not patenting the DNA sequence that makes up the gene itself, but the sequence of the complement? Of which there is only 1 for a given gene, although given the length of genes having a few mismatched bases is easily overcome with a bit of temperature control. Or are you saying that the patent is on a method of gene detection, e.g. PCR followed by a specific annealing/blot test? I'm curious, because if it's patenting the actual sequences then tomorrow I'm patenting the synthetic DNA sequences I (and many many other people) are using for nanotech research.
Why not just patent the elements and be done with it? There's no intellectual property here, they are just (re)discovering prior art.
they can own a part of me?
I have always known that patent law in the US was a little cooky but what are they going to have next?
slashdot healdine - *blank and blank company patents your penis*
sorry guys but this is just crazy
My anthology of genetic material has been copyrighted. Just let them try anything with me....
Should soon have a torrent up so you can all sample my tasty goodness.
You see, the tension in copyrights is between large media stakeholders and the great unwashed who want to watch Marx Brothers movies for free.
The tension in patents is between large monolithic corporations which can afford the patent rigmarole and large monolithic corporations looking to build off existing R&D.
In one case, there's a balance of power. In the other, there's not. Hence copyright is extended, while patents remain the same.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
If you're talking about base pairs, at least (It's aspartic acid if you're talking about amino acids).
It's represented as such because it's the next letter after C.
Similarly, B is C, G, or T; H is A, C, or T; and V is A, C, or G.
"Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
How they succeeded to patent genes? Did the God missed the oportunity to protest? Or did the God's application got rejected because it didn't meet some buerocratic requirements? :-)
I'm wandering how long it will take us to realize that patents simply forbid the mankind from using its knowledge in full for the benefit of all of us. (And of course for benefits of certain individuals, but this "dark side" cannot be the reason to continue in current direction...)
Maybe one day you can get in situation when you will think about "what if". What if the cure for the cancer your grandma is dying of could be found if all the knowledge was freely available to anybody who can use it... What if... we were simply stupid in our effort to forbid the natural usage of the knowledge by persecusion (law).
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
Patents expire in 20 years. So genetics research will be stifled for 20 years. Not such a tragedy in my opinion.
More of a tragedy if you or a loved one could benefit from what's being kept in the dark or never developed, no doubt.
You know these genes were just patented with the rationale that "if we don't do it, somebody else will, so we better do it first." Net profit for shareholders and mankind: nil, at best.
AFAIK this is incorrect - it is my understanding that for example Myriad (or whatever they're called now) owning the BRCA1 & 2 patent means that they "own" the information that these genes are involved in cancer. I.e. it wouldn't matter how you found out the sequence of your DNA, if you acquire the knowledge of whether or not you are predisposed to cancer by your BRCA1/2 alleles without going through Myriad, you violate the patent. For more details check this position statement by the NCIC out.
Scumbags.
So if you develope a small nanobot/nanodevice that can read and either store the gene information, or else send the information to an external storage device (computer network/computer on your desktop etc), do these patents cover these new future technologies of reading DNA gene information?
What if, for instance you havd a way of treating a cell and using, say, a laser to read out the cells DNA information?
How can you patent something that is natural, and never made by humans? Maybe I should go patent trees! And water!
If you can't convince them, convict them.
The human race has officially been "Pwnz0red"
and the patents expire, and they're in the public domain. This isn't a big deal.
Billions of people are "infringin" everyday. And you know what the scums who patented the genes can do ?
NOTHING.
Ahah.
Well, maybe also my son's, if I had one...
Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
How in the world can you patent a bodily function?
This is just insane.
Sure, patent products that use these genes, but to patent what is naturally occuring in nature ( for millions of years even.. )?
What is next, the old joke about patenting "breathing".
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Isn't there any way we can open source genes? with a knife?
Blog via SMS text messaging
I'm going to patent the human heart, or maybe I'll be gratious, and just patenet one of its valves.
this is/was/will be posted a number of times, please dont count the 'facts' as a dup, but the opinion as the post..thanks
#1 - the patent is on the method of 'useing' or 'detecting' the genes for research and development purposes.
#2 - 'prior art' by god(if you believe) or by nature(if you dont) MATTERS. creating in some way not only made these genes but also can read and manipulate them!
#3 - under #2, i believe that the attempt to decrypt the gene code to study or modify said genes is a direct violation of the DMCA. just because we cannot read nature's/god's patent, does not mean it doesn't apply. although the 'supreme patent' may have expired, and in that case the gene code is public domain.
#4 - if their is no hell or god, then a god will spontaneously form and create hell specifically for these people who patent genes. hell will be occupied by genetic patenters, car salesmen, and prosecuting attourneys.
#5 - i guess this may make cloneing illegal via patent violation!
Can we invoke the DMCA on these companies? Obviously their decoding of our genes violates the content protection system put in place by our ancestors who came up with this way of encoding information. We could let this all go with a reciprocal agreement. They can decode the genome and we get to use the patents. Deal?
EvilCON - Made Famous by
SCO claims humans have stolen their genetic codes. Comparisons between SCO CEO and human were inconclusive.
genes come in the front door patents go out the back door.
They should be put in jail for patenting work that we paid for.
I can see patenting the methods for discovering what the gene does, or for creating a NEW gene, or monitoring what various chemicals do to genes, but isn't this like patenting water?
This is an affront to the very concept of science.
I know it's easy to call "evil" on the bioengineering firms that are filing these patents, but this issue is much more shades-of-grey than that.
These companies are basically patenting roadmaps for the different genes in human DNA. The research involved in creating one of these roadmaps is VERY expensive. Tremendous medical progress will result from having these roadmaps, and that progress will benefit everyone, but someone has to make the big investments first to get us there. Just as we're seeing with space travel, private industry is more likely to fit the bill for this kind of "long road to profit" work than the federal government is.
Now, I'm not completely in agreement with the idea of being able to patent these roadmaps, but you can't have a debate on this without examining the alternatives:
1) If the populace were more enthusiastic about making serious bioengineering progress, the government could perhaps spend more money on this research, resulting in more of these roadmaps being public domain right off the bat, and thus allowing more private companies to compete with products based on those roadmaps. On the other hand, making the roadmaps might be expensive, but so is everything in the business plan that follows it. So, increased potential competition might actually discourage competition, though I'm sure in the end supply-and-demand guarantees that someone will take the plunge and try to profit from making next-generation genomics-derived products and services, so maybe my point here isn't valid.
2) I'm not a bioengineering expert, but it seems to me that trade secrets would be more appropriate than patents here. Company X spent $50 million figuring out a gene? OK, well, let them keep the results to themselves, they can release products based off of it, and the only people they'll have to worry about competing with are the other ones who independently spent $50 million to figure out that same information. This seems a more fair compromise, rather than demanding full exclusivity. I am, of course, assuming that it's easy to keep this information secret while simultaneously releasing products derived from it, and, not being an expert in the field, I don't know if this is possible or not.
3) On the other hand, using patents has its advantages to the public good. Firstly, given the still-limited spending on research into this area, it *is* somewhat wasteful for multiple companies to simultaneously invent the same wheel, when there are so many other wheels companies could be inventing at this very opportune point in time. So, in other words, there's SO MANY opportunties opened up by biotech, genomics, nanotech, etc, that we might be better off encouraging companies not to compete for the time being. There's enough "killer apps" for everyone, in this case.
4) Another advantage of patents to the public good: After 20 years, when the patents expire, the expensive-to-produce roadmaps are both freely available AND public domain, so anyone can obtain and make use of them. By contrast, if companies went the trade secret route, there's no real motivation to ever release the roadmaps to the public domain at all, nevermind in as little as 20 years.
Of course, none of these points of view are perfect. But I present them simply because I don't think the knee-jerk "patents are evil, patenting human genomes is ESPECIALLY evil" applies here. Given the various possibilities, I think the patent situation is one of the better ones. Of course, it would be better if one company didn't own such a large percentage of the patents.
Certainly I can't think of any entirely perfect way for all this to unfold, but however it unfolds, the benefits to come from all of this will be unfathomable. Really it's just a question of
1) How QUICKLY will progress in these fields be made?
and
2) How long will it take to trickle down and become affordable to the masses?
The REAL reason Monsanto would sue that farmer would be so that the Monsanto sponsored farmer could by his land, with Monsanto's help. In exchange the farmer who aquired the new land would have to sign a contract stating they would purchase Monsanto seed exclusively for all their crops - but didn't set a price. Then Monsanto jacks the cost to that farmer just enough to fleece him indefinitely, but not enough to put him out of business.
It's, Monsanto suing a farmer, has already happened:
Monsanto vs. Schmeiser"
FaclonShould there be a Law?
Am I missing something here?
How can someone patent something that is not theirs.
Surely you can't patent a discovery, but you can be credited.
Not to mention they discovered something that (nearly) every human being has (more living organisms too?), and was not given to them by anyone person on this earth.
(Hey, "God is one of us" zealots, SHUT IT)
Excellent. As soon as these companies begin to charging royalties for the gene reproduction and begin cracking down on "unauthorized duplication", all the world's overpopulation woes will be solved. This is a good thing, no?
I didn't complain when she requested it, but I was wondering what the extra $5 was last time I spent some time with a prostitute. Remember kids, always get an itemized receipt!
Wait... she shouldn't have to pay royalties unless she meant to use those genes. Well, time to write those child support checks.
Didn't Americans have a civil war to completely ban ownership of humans. Then corporations come along and only enslave/own 20% of people.
The US has now granted 1/5 of all human genes to be copyrighted. In the next 5 years estimates show the number of genes patented to extend to nearly 7/8ths of all genes. Therefore by the year 2014, nearly 99% of the human genome will be patented (and most of those patents will be held by faceless corporations). So, in an effort to bring China to its knees, the US has adopted its one child per family policy. But, being the blasphemous Americans that we are (of which I am "proud" to be), the US Government will begin filing lawsuits against those who are born without the express permission of patent holders. Then, each person born in the US will have a small stamp affixed to their birth certificates stating that they are the results of intellectual property of various corporation, and a small fee, lets say, a stamp tax will be payed as royalties, as part of its law, called the STIMP Act (Stamp Tax for Accounting of Intellectual Property). Then, if someone claims that they themselves are prior art, the government will apply Eminent Domain and terminate the person's life. Because we support the death penalty! But abortion is morally wrong! And the result of this awesome energy was euphemistically called the Genesis Planet, a secret base from which to launch the annihilation of creativity and self-expression. We demand the extradition of monopolies, we demand justice!...Remember this well, there shall be no peace as long as [RIAA] "lives"! (You pompous ass!) Yes, we Nerds and Geeks are a proud race, and we will continue on being proud, but that does not mean we stand for principles without reason! We have the right to preserve our race! (You have the right to commit theft!) [RIAA] has been charged with nine violations of copyright legislation. Copyright Legislation! Behold the quinticential devil in these matters, RIAA: renegade and terrorist. Not only is it responsible for the lack of quality, the murder of self-expression. Behold the real plot and intentions. Just as intellectual property was becoming more free, studios were secretly developing DRM and other methods to "protect" the unprotectable: that which was born free.
Ok, having butchered enough of that Klingon debate and rearranged it, I think I've kept myself from falling victim to one of Paramount's copyright raids. I am really outraged by this though. Patents, copyright, trade secrets: all are just manifestations of the same lie. Property is something that one is able to own, to do with what he or she pleases. It doesn't matter if he or she created the object. Let's take coffe for example. Very few people like their coffee exactly the same way. But many people order (overpriced) coffee at Starbucks. Starbucks doesn't (and cannot) place restrictions on how someone fixes their coffee. Someone could drink the doctored coffee and say "that is the worst shit in the world" and slam Starbucks, even though it was the friend who doctored the coffee himself. Coffee is a good example because it's something we can all relate to. We all have the natural rights to do with our property what we please. Property does not extend into the virtual realm. This argument that "intellectual property" can be licensed is absurd. When you buy a cup of coffee, you buy the cup, the liquid, and the various straws and stirs and things. You consume the coffee, then do whatever you want to. You could buy some coffee and share it with someone. You could use it as sculpture or as a political statement (although I'm a bit dumbfounded as to how). The bottom line is that "intellectual property" is actually very narrow. I'd be pissed off if someone came into my head and stole my ideas to profit by that. But this is the one "intellectual property" not protected by law! Ideas can't be protected, only manifestations. So what defines a peice of music? What defines a gene sequence? What defines anything? The answer is that none of it is definable. It is all in a legal sense the same bloddy thing. In fact, everything is made of the 12 fundamental particles and antiparticles. So it's jus
s/corn/canola/g
Nature made us....
Nature's way of gene propogation/proliferation is NATURAL...
YOU CANNOT PATENT NATURE....
PATENT OFFICE: YOU NEED TO WAKE THE FUCK UP....... OR YOU NEED TO KEEP SREWING UP AND LET THE US POPULATION TAKE YOU OUT.
The USPTO has absolutely lost their mind when they're trying to patent/allow to be patented parts of nature that HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE BEFORE WE HAD A MIND TO COMPREHEND NATURE AND IT'S GENETIC FACTORS UPON US.
Why are we trying to patent something nature has already created?? If the genetic combination is possible, it should not be patentable, PERIOD. If nature can create it, mankind has no right to try patenting it.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
All the geeks of the world found a way to make every one one of their websites feature a sturdy black "software patents are bad" page a short while ago.... perhaps we should really be concerned about corporate/institutional ownership of the instructions for life?
I personally am sick of GMO food and genetic patents, and all of this patent crap. I don't particularly care what science tells me, or whether it's true or not, regarding the safety of the product. As a human I have some right to natural things, food being of primary consideration, over some company's right to profit.
I hope some country or block of countries tells the patent happy world to take a flying leap.
Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
Yet another reason why freedom loving people love Canada. (-:
This simply shows how screw up the US patent system is, and how much countries that make commerce agreements with the US will suffer in the future. For them, it's either make a few bucks now and suffer for decades to come... ...Basically, how the fuck can you patent something that appears in nature? This is absurd as patenting Water. Just completely dumb!
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Well it seems fairly clear that a thread like this will generate the obvious interest. One has to remember that the United States of America is the country that attempts to declare ownership of obvious natural elements, rather than the complex process of delivering product to market, in order to protect future capital.
What this demonstrates to the external 1st world commercial sectors is:
A) The United States government is capable of allowing frivelous activies like this to exist, thus generating costs, time and lack of production in certain sectors, at a time when the United States health system and economy is obviously in a state of absolute disarray (I live in a country where I have friends recently who visited the US, and had health issues, and being from another 1st world country, the medical system in America is less than 3rd world. Sorry guys, but it's the truth, just look at your inability to respond to Katrina and look after your own citizens. How can you tell the world what to do, when you can't even look after yourselves.)
B) That the conservative groups who vote for political parties like the current people have lost their judicial wisdom to select correct political leaders, and the people who serve the republican party, that whilst they do make many attempts to perform governing for the better sake of the people, have also demonstrated a complete, immature and inept ability to both govern foreign policy, and internal civil matters.
C) That in the average American's ignorance, they are completely, utterly, and totally unaware, of how embarrasing it is, for any man woman or child, to think they could patent something like a human gene. Don't concern yourself with God and dramatism etc.... In Reality, history, past experience tells us, if you make a grab for control of a God like nature (look in your history gentlemen) then people (whether they be US citizens, judges etc...or the same from overseas) will quite correctly tell you to check yourself.
God is so confident in his inventions, he doesn't even need to waste time in a court of law, to pretend that he needs to defend the charge, of not inventing the human gene. He knows it. We simply waste our time pretending amongst ourselves it's possibly true when obviously it is not.
Hypothetical:
------------
Quite clearly, these institutions will also be able to argue, in a valid court of law, be it American, International, where ever, that as proof on record they invented the human gene, they are therefor able to invent other, amazing life technology. If as a result of their sitting back, after having invented the human gene, and not invented the cures to all these diseases that can directly be correlated to ownership of invention with that gene, they can then obviously be held for negligence to the human race....
------------
Yes, it's an unrealistic point of view, but in reality, so is patenting the human gene. The harder you try to insist on false concepts, the more you will have what is apparently "bull#$%$" thrown back in your face.
Conclusion?
Do what you can, to kindly, calmly remind the gentlemen involved, that they are fooling themselves, and in the long run, they will only ever be able to look back at their own professional careers, as a negative, untruthful attempt at success for mankind.
Sort of like being half pregnant......
...as Franklin was opposed to patents, and famously did not patent his stove, nor any of his other inventions.
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
or is this old patent concept ~1790 due for a rewamping anno 2005 ? this is about as ridiculus as certain software patents.
Talk about having the balls to take credit for someone else's work -- this time Americans have reached the top. What's next? Some American company going to patent the Universe?
Not only does it "block other uses, including research" from doing anything helpful with the gene sequence's application, which is the part patented, the thousands and thousands of patents that are enqueued in the US Patent Office highly discourage companies and research firms from wanting to do anything related to new gene-sequence based experiments and research. Sure, the work may be very helpful to millions of people, but who wants to work with something that could possibly turn out to be patented in a few years---and then having to pay huge licensing fees to continue work or to sell a product.
Not only do current patents discourage work with gene sequences, but the fear of future patents and enqueued patents deteriorate the progression of research as well.
The patent system needs to require working prototypes and enforcing true "novel and non-obvious" tests, or this sort of insane abuse will continue.
That's all right. Due to an injury I survived, literally survived as when I was in a coma after an accident the docs told my family it'd be a miracle if I lived, all too often I make mistakes.
I also assumed that he lost too, but that's me just being cynical.
Before I checked to make sure I thought he lost as well as it seems businesses can get away with many things. Seems all that matters is how much money can be saved and/or made.
FaclonShould there be a Law?
well, they CAN try...
i guess on a long shot they can patent a certain method of manupliating genes or something, or a METHOD of discovery, but not the genes or their use of them. i mean seriously i'm using them right now, are they going to try tell me it's due to their patent?
you patent system has gone insane, write to your senators, call them and pressure them.remind them who they fucking work for.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Now those companies are going to start suing us (ala the RIAA) for unauthorized use of those genes. We'll have to obtain a license so we can go on existing. My question is now ... does making copies of ourselves (i.e., babies) constitute "fair use" or will they try to grab us for that as well???
That's why God leaves more than one couple after a flood (such as Noah's three sons and their wives): kissing kousins is kosher. =P
But if you want to piss off a southern Baptist, ask them where the wives of Cain and Abel came from.