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
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."
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.
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?
In the United States, business firms patent you!
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
Clippy: I see you are trying to apply logic to the patent system.
Would you like to:
1. Take bong hits until this makes sense
2. Shoot self to save time
3. Hey look over there, a shiny pebble!
> various organizations and universities own the plans to ME?
> TAHT'S WHY I'M PORTING MYSELF TO A SILICON BASED LIFE FORM! WHO'S WITH ME?
I, for one, welcome our new silicon based patent-unencumbered overlords!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
When I was taking a business trip once, I sat next to a man who turned out to be a lawyer for a biochemical company. How he explained this to me was that the genes that are being patented are not the 'native' gene that is in every human,but a 'purified' version of the gene that has extranious garbage taken out.
So CGDAAADAACG that you may find in nature, you get CGAAAAACG, since the D enzyme are considered garbage in this example.
I asked him if they really knew that the D enzyme was really garbage, and he said that they did not, but they were fairly confident it didnt do anything.
Hint: The only bases in use in Earth DNA are Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine (ACGT).
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.
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.
From the article, it sounds like a lot of these genes are being patented without actually having the use for it. The purpose behind patent law is to allow somebody to share their information with others without fear of losing intellectual ownership. These patents are more like staked claims on land. "I claim this gene for the growth hormone. I don't yet know HOW to do it, but I know this is the gene that will do it, so I'll just claim it before anybody else gets it". Simply knowing what a gene's purpose is should not be enough to grant a patent, IMO. They should be required to actually have information on HOW it is used to be able to patent it as a process.
It's like saying "I patent rubber for use in wheels, because I know wheels should be made of rubber. I'll make no attempt at explaining how to make a wheel or how to use the rubber on the wheel, just that I want to collect money from anybody who says 'rubber' and 'wheel' in the same sentence"
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
1.
"All Your Base-Pair Are Belong To Us"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend