SCOTUS To Hear Patentable Thought Case

skayell writes "The Supreme Court of the United States will hear a landmark patent case involving whether or not thoughts and relationships are patentable. Michael Crichton's essay in the New York Times attempts a thoughtful summary of Metabolite's primary assertion: they not only own the connection between homocysteine levels in the blood and vitamin B12 deficiency, but also any thought connecting the two."

Comments

crap

[Janek Kozicki]

this is the first time I used a tag crap, you can follow if you wish :)

Re:crap

[SEWilco]

The tag "patented" should be added because the summary contains a patented thought.

Re:crap

[IgnoramusMaximus]

And so now, Ladies and Gentlemen, you finally have a glimpse of the true, inevietable and logical implications of the notion of the so-called "Intellectual Property".

No, folks, this is not an abberrant perversion of law or politics. This is the true purpose, as intended, of IP. Utter and total control of information, including thoughts, basic arithmetics, integer numbers and lanugage constructs. Because, as I kept explaining over and over, all of these are mere forms and facets of the same thing: information. And once you allow "ownership", however illogical that idea is, of information, the rest simply follows from there.

To its inevietable consequences.

Cause and effect. It is as simple as that.

Re:crap

[wileyAU]

This country is going to have to come to a serious reckoning very soon on the subject of Intellectual Property. I may be annoyed by HBO threatening to sue me over shifting a few bits around the network, but there are things far worse. My mother recently had her gall bladder removed. But what if her doctor had not been able to tell her the result of the test to determine that because someone else held a patent on that diagnosis? I do understand the need for patents. It is entirely reasonable to protect an idea long enough for a company to produce a product and start making money. However, when a company can file patents and put them in a drawer waiting to sue someone who actually figures out how to implement them ( NPT vs. Blackberry); Microsoft can patent "A method, comprising: selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon; assigning a character sequence to the pixels; and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination" (Smiley Face Patent); and, as mentioned in Crichton's article, a company can patent a link between elevated homocysteine levels and vitamin deficiency, something needs to be done.

Re:crap

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I do understand the need for patents.

I don't. Or more precisely, I do understand the intention, but it is plain to see that while it might have been semi-workable in the 19th century, the idea is fundamentally flawed.

It is entirely reasonable to protect an idea long enough for a company to produce a product and start making money.

Not so. The claim is being made that patents "promote innovation". That is not true. Desire to learn in some areas and greed and competition in others "promote innovation". The concept of a patent, as an artificial stimuli for development has looong since outlived even the pretenses of its usefullness. The usual excuse, that of protecting "small time" inventor from predation by "large corporation", is also plainly false. Vast majority of patents are filed and held by various corporations, and the ones held by individuals are usualy crackpot.

Another argument for patents claims that they protect the company who invests into reasearch from "freeloading" by copy-cats. I say that such "copy cats" are precisely the engine of competition and the time lead afforded by the new design or discovery is reward enough in itself. It is even self-balancing: more complex the design, longer it will take the competition to copy it properly. Thus longer the exclusivity window. And only continuous research and development guarantees that lead over competitors to be permanent. As it should be. There is no need for an artificial bureaucratic nonsense to "protect", poor, downtrotten multi-billion corporations from each other.

Re:crap

[Kitsune818]

I support the concept of a patent on a product only for such a time as the exclusivity of that product generates revenues that equal its development costs. After that point, there is no longer a patent. The only purpose a patent can serve is to offset the cost of development for a new or novel concept that otherwise would not be funded.. However, once the company has recouped its development costs, they should then be on a level playing field with competitors. I would venture to say that competitors should be able to ready competing products for market on the day the patent expires. Furthermore, if you fail to develop your idea into a marketable product in a certain amount of time, the patent is lost. Research isn't stifled, the market determines who has the best implementation (just because you came up with the idea doesn't mean you'll be the best person to create it), and submarine patents are addressed. Also, this insures that if the idea is revolutionary enough, the originator can bring that product to market and compete with the large corporate conglomorates while they recoup their development costs. Being quicker to market can help them establish brand name, etc. I say, give them a year to bring the product to the people, after that, the patent is valid only until the financial quarter where profit from the invention meets or exceeds documented development cost, with a maximum of two years. That means the longest any one patent can be held is 3 years. Intangibilities cannot be patented, only produceable, tangible end product performing a unique function.

Re:crap

[nasch]

Not a bad idea, but then you would have companies spending enormous quantities of money on research and development, at least on paper. This would give them more free time to sell without competition. Some would get caught at this fraud and some would not, but it's something that would have to be dealt with under such a system.

Re:crap

[kiatoa]

Just to add to the parent posts point:

My understanding is that patents, originally at least, were intended to encourage inventors to disclose their ideas. The premise being that giving a short term monopoly to the inventor was a healthy trade for the public disclosure of an invention. I see this being a societal benefit in two scenarios.

1. Where an invention can be kept secret and the inventor can use the invention to make a profit. The risk to society is that the invention could conceivebly die with the inventor by never being disclosed.

2. Where the inventor might opt to never disclose an invention because he/she knows that they don't have the resources to turn it into a product and there is no way they can capitalize on their idea.

So, given those two factors it seems to me that 90% of patents are given for things that don't need any patent protection because there is little or no risk that the inventors would opt to keep the invention secret.

The upshot? 99% of all patents are probably "defensive" patents. What a waste of resources and I know first hand that it puts a chill on inovation. Have a good idea? Don't waste your money developing it into a product or trying to patent it. Chances are someone is already sitting on a submarine patent with that same (probably obvious to "one trained in the art") idea waiting to bleed you dry via laywer blood letting.

Everything should be patented

[Nick Gisburne]

Let's just have patents on EVERYTHING, every gene, every molecule, every action you could ever think of. Then in 17 years (or whatever the time limit is) when they expire, we can forget all this patent bullshit and just get on with life again. I'd be willing to wait those 17 years if the patent system would just expire.

Re:Everything should be patented

[TubeSteak]

1. 17 years is a minimum, not a maximum for medical patents. You can get extensions for a variety of reasons & the big pharma companies often do.

2. If you let the bastards lock up everything for the next 17 years, the Chinese are going to put the U.S. of A. so far behind that it'll require a insane amounts of spending to catch up.

3. The public might need some of the innovations those ideas may generate between now and the year 2023.

Re:Everything should be patented

[zilym]

You jest, but this just might work... The people wouldn't even need to wait the full 20 years for the patent system to meltdown:

Patents expire 20 years after the initial filing date of a patent application. If everyone were to DDoS the patent office with junk patent applications on every little thing imaginable in the world, we could bog down the patent office so much that it would take decades to get a patent reviewed and granted. If it takes 15 years to get a patent reviewed, the patent owner only gets a scant 5 years to enforce their patent against people ("infrigement" before the grant date doesn't count, and anything after the expiration date doesn't count either).

If the enforcement time period is short enough, then the owners will eventually figure out that patents are completely useless.

Re:Everything should be patented

[Surt]

Unfortunately, that would require at least an aleph-0 of patents. And given how slow and overwhelmed the patent office is, no doubt an aleph-3 to process them all.

Re:Everything should be patented

[Kadin2048]

That'll work well, until the injunction on infringing on my patent for "An Apparatus and Process for Extracting Oxygen from a Low-Density Fluid Using Positive and Negative Pressure Differentials" comes into effect.

Seventeen years is a long time.

Re:Everything should be patented

[the_humeister]

I'm so fucking sick of these stupid patents that I think the grandparent and the parent posts are right. We should patent everything and let other countries who don't have such stupid laws out-do us in the technology field. We reap what we sow, and maybe if/when China does get ahead, that will be the impetus for the USA to change these stupid laws.

Re:Everything should be patented

[tepples]

If it takes 15 years to get a patent reviewed, the patent owner only gets a scant 5 years to enforce their patent against people

There is already a term extension for patents whose approval was unjustly delayed. See Title 35, United States Code, section 156 and the surrounding sections. If the Patent Office gets too bogged down, then Congress could broaden this extension or, as a last-ditch effort, just reinstate the rule for patents that were subsisting as of 1997: the greater of filing + 20 or grant + 17.

Re:Everything should be patented

[Alef]

Perhaps we should create a program that enumerates every thought, and formats them as patent applications, and files.

Of course, the patent authorities would counter by raising fees the for filing an application enough to either choke the DDoS or fund salaries for more patent office clerks.

Re:Everything should be patented

[aichpvee]

2. If you let the bastards lock up everything for the next 17 years, the Chinese are going to put the U.S. of A. so far behind that it'll require a insane amounts of spending to catch up.

But oh noes, we won't be able to spend because just then the Chinese will decide that they've had enough of lending us money and we'll be sunk. It was fun being a super power while it lasted though, right?

Re: Everything should be patented

[aquabat]

In this case, the supreme court has the opportunity to make it possible for you to patent your idea of patenting the act of applying for a patent.

In fact, now that I've thought about it, I could patent the idea of patenting the idea of patenting the act of applying for a patent.

Re:Everything should be patented

[Comatose51]

Let's just have patents on EVERYTHING, every gene, every molecule, every action you could ever think of. Then in 17 years (or whatever the time limit is) when they expire, we can forget all this patent bullshit and just get on with life again. I'd be willing to wait those 17 years if the patent system would just expire.

Screw you buddy! Do you know how difficult it is to not have sex or, in the case of the Slashdot crowd, masturbate for 17 years

Re:Everything should be patented

[SeeMyNuts!]

I have a patent on all thoughts about patenting. I will collect royalties from big companies making patent extensions and give all the proceeds to...myself.

Re:Everything should be patented

[eric76]

Actually, once China becomes the technological leaders of the world, they will patent all their systems and declare war on us.

We will lose that war because we won't be able to buy the most up to date weapons systems from them and we would violate their patents if we pirated their technology.

The real question is how much of that technology that will be unavailable to us will be owned by multinational companies that were founded here but moved elsewhere partly because of our crazy patent laws.

Re:Everything should be patented

[Tedium Unleased]

Patent this idea, and then make sure nobody else can do it! Muhahaahaha.

Re:Everything should be patented

[jbn-o]

This rather naive notion assumes that the terms of patents wouldn't be extended like the term of copyright has been extended many times, so that these patents actually would expire in some relatively short amount of time. It assumes that the adverse impact borne by the poor would not be so great as to seriously injure and/or kill them. It assumes that the loss to other freedoms we value would not be so great that we would miss those other freedoms: what if an unlimited patent scope poses greater interference with our freedom of speech or assembly? What if our ability to effectively challenge our government's actions is curtailed in a whole new way, thanks to making every idea patentable?

I don't think your concept has been seriously considered enough to merit a +5 "Interesting" moderation, nor do I think it's good enough to seriously contemplate implementation. Your idea is what I'd normally associate with a shill for a large patent holder, like IBM or some other multinational corporation that cross-licenses its patents to cushion the blow the patent regime imposes on other organizations and individuals.

Re:Everything should be patented

[rrohbeck]

I *have* to patent this amazing molecule I just discovered in my bathroom. I determined the chemical structure to be H2O. There doesn't seem to be any claim on it in the USPTO database.

Re:Everything should be patented

[poopdeville]

We will lose that war because we won't be able to buy the most up to date weapons systems from them and we would violate their patents if we pirated their technology.

If we went to war with China, neither side would expect their patents to be respected by the enemy.

Re:Everything should be patented

[Eric Damron]

"I'd be willing to wait those 17 years if the patent system would just expire."

Okay, but I get the patent on breathing!

Re:Everything should be patented

[Myopic]

point of fact: china is way more than 17 years "behind" the united states

Re:Everything should be patented

[Pendersempai]

That's a great idea. I'll get the patent for breathing. My licensing scheme will cost half of your net worth. If I don't like you I won't license it at all and I'll get an injunction against you if you continue to breathe anyway. Don't worry, though, only seventeen years until it expires! :)

Re:Everything should be patented

[StikyPad]

The only thing that would do is drive fees higher.

Re: Everything should be patented

[Bozdune]

Sorry, I already patented the idea of patenting the idea of patenting the act of applying for a patent. And just to be safe, I then patented the idea of patenting any further recursions.

Re:Everything should be patented

[Gentlewhisper]

>>point of fact: china is way more than 17 years "behind" the united states

Keep deluding yourself buddy

Yours Sincerely,

CCP

Re:Everything should be patented

[Nick Gisburne]

If you are saying that the adverse impacts, loss of freedoms etc, are such that 'everything should be patented' is wrong, then surely by your same argument a SINGLE patent is wrong. Patents restrict freedoms for 17 years, whether it is a single patent or multi-millions of patents. The system is already in place where you can, right now, file any and every idea you can think of, and stop other people using that idea/invention for a fixed amount of time - that's the very basis of the patent system.

My original post was actually calling for an end to the ridiculous patenting of intellectual ideas, facts, and biological properties (eg human genes). I was saying this: get all these junk patents out of the way, all at once. They are going to be patented one by one anyway, so rather than prolonging the agony with a one-by-one drip feed, patent them all now. Then in 17 years when they expire (and they do expire - you get a monopoly but the patent deal is that you accept the expiration date), we will all be free to invent medicines based on any human gene of our choice, we can all use one-click systems on our web sites, and so on - insert patent of your choice here.

We are going to be locked out of these things one by one, 17 years each, for centuries (for ever in fact), so let's get a patent on everything, and then in 17 years there will be no patents left to stop us doing ANYTHING.

Of course, it's not possible - for a start, everything that is ever going to be invented will have to be invented right now! So there is no need for 'serious contemplation'. But in theory, get them all out of the way and by 2023 we have a patent-free world where anyone can use any idea they choose.

How many billions of genomes did I need to individually file for again?

Re:Everything should be patented

[Nick Gisburne]

Sorry, I can cite prior art on that one. If you can breathe underwater, however, you can probably get it passed - although the fish got there first, they are unlikely to raise any objection in person at the USPTO.

Re:Everything should be patented

[Mr. Hankey]

Not really, everything that's patented is published in the patent. They can take whatever they want, and in China they won't even need to pay for it. It's a great deal for them, since descriptions of all this technology is available to view for free. They can run with it, making modifications and improvements while we're bound by the patent holder. A large number of the manufacturing plants for much of our technology is in or around China as well, we're practically begging them to surpass us on the technology front.

Re:Everything should be patented

[lahvak]

That may be true in some areas, but definitely not universally. Besides, its pointless, because it does not have to take 17 years to catch up a 17 years gap.

Re:Everything should be patented

[bar-agent]

"An Apparatus and Process for Extracting Oxygen from a Low-Density Fluid Using Positive and Negative Pressure Differentials" ...breathing?

Re:Everything should be patented

[alonsoac]

assuming that you are serious, there's a problem. You forget that there are actually good patents, if maybe we don't hear about them very often but I'm sure there are at least a few cases where someone somwhere invented somthing really new and neat and they need to get it patented before maybe a big corporation steals their idea. I'm sure you would want some protection from someone stealing your idea. It's just the bad patents that fuck it up for everybody.

Re:Everything should be patented

[ClamIAm]

Send me money to cover the fees, and I'll get right on that.

Re:Everything should be patented

[Reziac]

No problem... I own the patent on "Oxygen". Pay up!

And to the dude who's about to protest, I also own the patents for protons, neutrons, electrons, random unnamed particles, and all forces known and unknown pertaining thereto.

Re:Everything should be patented

[penix1]

There is no need for them to be as sneaky as that when they will own the very corporations that own the patents. If they don't own them outright they will own a major intrest in them. /me removing my tinfoil hat...

B.

Re: Everything should be patented

[aquabat]

Ha! After I posted, I realized that the real money is in things that are not patented. Persuant to this, I proceeded to patent the idea of not having the idea of patenting anything.

Re:Everything should be patented

[Lonewolf666]

IIRC, the USA did happily pirate foreign "intellectual property" during the 19th century, because Europe was technologically ahead at the time. Just as China does today, albeit with slightly more subtle methods:
Foreign high tech companies who want to do business in China have to do it in cooperation with a local company. If the technology from these joint ventures happens to show up elsewhere, tough luck ;-)

Today, the USA have a position as technology leader in many fields, hence the drive to secure this advantage through patents and international treaties. I believe the roles will be reversed again if China actually takes the lead:
Then we will have a China that insists on "intellectual property" while the USA steal what they can ;-)

Re:Everything should be patented

[Rich0]

17 years is a minimum, not a maximum for medical patents. You can get extensions for a variety of reasons & the big pharma companies often do.

Yes and no. Medical patents in the US expire at 17 years, period. However, the US FDA under certain circumstances will delay approval of competing products even after the patent expires, which effectively maintains patent protection even if the patent itself is no longer valid.

These extensions are usually on the order of six months, and are obtained by doing orphan drug studies or pediatric studies of a product. The idea is that these studies are very expensive, and the manufacturer is in the best position to perform them. However, there isn't much money in selling Lipitor to 12 year olds, so the studies wouldn't normally get done. By performing the studies (if requested by the FDA) the company can sell Lipitor to adults for an extra six months, and that is VERY BIG money.

When you hear about generic drugs being held off for years on end, that isn't a matter of patent extensions / government protection. Instead, this is typically a result of loopholes and legal maneuvers, which most people think should be banned outright (even some pharma companies take this stance). The six month limited extension is a quid-pro-quo for the public (adults pay more for six months, less kids die forever), but the legal maneuvers are only about lining pockets and don't benefit anybody but the stockholders.

Re:Everything should be patented

[avronius]

Reminds me of the book, "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

It suggested that a combination of socialism and monopolistic activites were bringing about the end of the world, and that the best minds of the world should just stand back and let it happen. Then, when there's nothing left, they can go back in and start over.

I don't subscribe to her philosophy, but it looks like the Patent Lawyers are attempting to enforce her theories at all costs...

- This is just an observation, and should, in no way, be viewed as an explaination (I hope that disclaimers haven't yet been patented...) -

Re:Everything should be patented

[Pendersempai]

I don't see an exception for prior art in the suggestion that we should "have patents on EVERYTHING, every gene, every molecule, every action you could ever think of" :)

Marketplace of Ideas

[Doc Ruby]

Here's a chance for the Court to clear away some of the brush accumulated by the PTO bureacracy that threatens to engulf all intellectual activity, property generation and otherwise, in flames. Who wants to bet whether the latest two of the nine appointed justices will protect thinkers' freedom and the market's choices, or monopolies on ideas and inventions?

Re:Marketplace of Ideas

[spun]

I think we know how the people in power would like them to rule. Those in power are doing everything they can to destroy democracy and the free market and install a fundamentalist oligarchy in their place. However, you never know with supreme court justices. They are appointed for life after all, so theoretically they are free to rule based on their conscience. Hopefully they weren't appointed simply because someone has some really nasty dirt on them that can be used to ensure their cooperation.

Re:Marketplace of Ideas

[Doc Ruby]

As far as we can tell from the history of Roberts and Alito, their conscience says the president is the government, and the rest of the system is just a medium to be notified, if at all.

I don't believe that a person who's been extremely successful their entire life operating under a self-developed philosophy will somehow develop a new value system in their 50s or 60s just because they have job security. They liked the old values.

Re:Marketplace of Ideas

[BrokenHalo]

...so theoretically they are free to rule based on their conscience.

...Which appears to be part of the problem. Justice is for those who can afford it.

I hope this gets smacked down hard

[springbox]

Otherwise, you all are infringing on an undisclosed thought that I am having

Re:I hope this gets smacked down hard

[Phroggy]

Otherwise, you all are infringing on an undisclosed thought that I am having

Well, at least patents do have to be disclosed. Apparently you no longer have to disclose how it works, but you do have to disclose what it does, in terms that are vague enough not to let your competitors know what you're up to but specific enough not to apply to obvious prior art.

Patents are supposed to be a trade-off: you tell us how it works, and we won't let anyone else make it for awhile.

Re:I hope this gets smacked down hard

[VJ42]

On the other hand, if it's held up, you can patent the idea of patenting somthing. That'd screw the system up. Thankfully, living here in the UK, we don't (yet) allow patents of this kind, infact according to the patent office website it's specifically excluded:

"An invention is not patentable if it is:

• a discovery;

• a scientific theory or mathematical method;

• an aesthetic creation such as a literary, dramatic or artistic work;

• a scheme or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business;

• the presentation of information, or a computer program."

Re:I hope this gets smacked down hard

[Marsmensch]

Hey, man, this is slashdot. It's not like there's such variety of thought here. I mean take away the pr0n related thoughts and there isn't much left...

Re:I hope this gets smacked down hard

[BrokenHalo]

That list is reassuring, but the US has a nasty habit of attempting to apply its legislation outside its jurisdiction. Here in Australia, a number of cases have come up where a suspect can be or has been extradited to the US for crimes committed outside the US, and our government chooses to do absolutely nothing about it.

If Blair's government in the UK isn't already making its way down that path, I would be surprised.

Re:I hope this gets smacked down hard

[heinousjay]

Any citations on those cases? I'm curious to see the situations.

Re:I hope this gets smacked down hard

[badfish99]

It's worse.

Blair has signed an extradition treaty with the US that removes the need for the US to show "probable cause" before a suspect is extradited. So any British citizen can be arbitrarily seized and taken to the US for trial, at the whim of the US authorities, without them having to give any reason.

The treaty is supposed to be bilateral, so that we could seize their citizens on the same terms. But the US have not ratified their part of it, so it is being enforced entirely one-sidedly. See, for example, this story

The Fall of American Civilization

[Alien54]

will happen because of the absurdities growing in both Patent and Copyright Law. This is what it feels like to be a test monkey in a laboratory, folks.

Re:The Fall of American Civilization

[mOOzilla]

Its called "Europe" but I just wish the stinky USA/US/Aus rogue nations would keep theyre fingers out of it.

Re:The Fall of American Civilization

[slavemowgli]

Actually, the fall of American civilisation will happen because of people who fail to realise that there's more to America than the USA.

Re:The Fall of American Civilization

[StikyPad]

Why do you think they call America the Great Experiment?

Re:The Fall of American Civilization

[Alien54]

No, this is not an attempt at being funny.

And this differs from the effors of MPAA, RIAA, and various patent, trademark, and copyright law how?

note that even DC And Marvel Comics are trying to get a joint trademark on the phrase "Super Hero" so that no one else can use it.

The death of a thousand cuts.

Re:The Fall of American Civilization

[Alien54]

It's not funny because We, as a society, may choose to elect new officials, spend our money in places of our choosing, may create our own art, music and movies (with the advent of modern technology), and with effort, organize ourselves in a manor of our choosing, with laws of our choosing. Unfortunately, many in our society choose to be complacent and fail to make choices for themselves. This allows for others to choose for them. Choices must and will be made; would you choose for yourself, or allow others to choose for you? I doubt if a lab monkey would choose to have a poker up his ass. That, my friend, is the difference. We have a choice, they don't. Some of us fail to realize this.

That was well thought out enough that it deserves posting outside the anonymous coward rubrick.

Although it is arguable as to how much free will is merely an apparency created by marketeers, at least at the mass market level. Within that context, much of public taste may be only an apparency, a world of golden shackels. That said, on the curve of the slippery slope, you get points because the monkey is far worse off.

Re:The Fall of American Civilization

[maxwell demon]

Imagine the president patenting any thought connecting himself and any illegal activity ... then everyone telling that he does something illegal will violate his patent and receive a cease-and-desist letter!

Re:The Fall of American Civilization

[AlterTick]

Actually, the fall of American civilisation will happen because of people who fail to realise that there's more to America than the USA.

Actually it will fall because of pointless bickering and pedantic nit picking over the literal meaning of the word "america", and the colloquial meaning. Literally, yes, the word means the whole of north and south america. despite that, it has come to be used to refer to the United States of America specifically, and based on the recognition that, but for the isthmus of panama, there are two major, distinct land masses, references to the continental mass are generally a compounding: "the americas", or "north and south america". Usage defines meaning. Arguing otherwise is futile, as even those compiling the OED were eventually forced to admit.

are you thinking what i'm thinking?

[dirtyhippie]

Guy 1: "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"

Guy 2: "Yes!"

Guy 1: "I'll see you in court, asshole."

Re:are you thinking what i'm thinking?

[SirClicksalot]

Guy 1: "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"


I think so, Brain, but where are we going to find a duck and a hose at this hour?

Re:are you thinking what i'm thinking?

[Tsaot]

Pinky, Are you thinking what I'm thinking.
 
I think so Brain, but where are we going to get the lederhosen for the horse?
 
...I'm never going to be able to sue you Pinky.

Re:are you thinking what i'm thinking?

[tutori]

A note to all who modded the parent funny: I have recently filed for a patent on the correlation between finding a post humorous and modding that post up. My lawyers will be in touch with you shortly.

Re:are you thinking what i'm thinking?

[zotz]

Guy 1: "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"

Guy 2: "Yes!"

Guy 1: "I'll see you in court, asshole."

Guy 2: "Fantastic! Just what I was thingking."

3. ????

4. Profit!

all the best,

drew

Another step on the road

[say]

We don't need no education
('cause) Metabolite does thought control
Science, progress - all is futile
People, leave the firms alone!
People! Leave the firms alone!
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

Re:Another step on the road

[Btarlinian]

In case anyone didn't know, that a refernce to Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall.
Link to original lyrics

Re:Another step on the road

[Reziac]

Which brings to mind...

My bologna has a first name, it's bioresearch staff
My bologna has a second name, it's gas chromatograph
And I have wondered, so have you
Why it tastes the way it do.....
'Cuz Oscar Mayer has a way
With recombinant DNA!

(c) 1991 Offworld Press (that's me :)

Oh, and this ditty goes to support my patent on nonsense rhetoric used in support of nonsense patents.

Congress?

[ikejam]

somehow I doubt that the issue will be resolved before Congressional Balls are savaged from the lobby brigade's garbage bins.

This is a question of broken laws and exploitation of outdated models. Not intepretation.

Re:Congress?

[KarmaMB84]

I've patented the though process required to sentence me to prison. I'm going to go rob a bank now.

R.E.M anyone?

[boardin_1]

Sing along. I'm sure you know the words...

"It's the end of the world as we know it...It's the end of the world as we know it..."

The Patent System is Broken

[Fitzghon]

The patent system is definitely broken. It is bogging down innovation with lawsuits and silly claims. It is very nice to see Crichton on the offensive about this issue, and hopefully he and Research in Motion (RIM) will be able to trigger some more response and reform in the patent office. As was noted earlier on ./ RIM is running full-page ads (cf. http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=25858) protesting the patent office situation.

Fitzghon

Re:The Patent System is Broken

[TubeSteak]

Until I read TFA, I didn't realize he was that MICHAEL CRICHTON.

Lawyers now advise ... screenwriters to patent their movie plots. (My screenplay for "Jurassic Park" was cited as a good candidate.)

I just assumed it was a guy with a similiar name.

Has he always been active in the opinion/commentary field?

Re:The Patent System is Broken

[sabre86]

Yeah, he has. If I can dig up the link to one of his speeches, I'll post it.

Re:The Patent System is Broken

[manboy9]

Yes, very much so. He's been particularly active aginst the global warming crowd. His latest novel, State of Fear, is essentially a criticism of how our society has essentially shut down all scientific debate on global warming, and how it's just the latest "sky is falling" theory to emerge to scare the general population.

You can find some more of his views here. His speech in front of the senate commitee is particularly interesting.

Re:The Patent System is Broken

[feijai]

It is very nice to see Crichton on the offensive about this issue, and hopefully he and Research in Motion (RIM) will be able to trigger some more response and reform in the patent office.

RIM is an evil company, in court and out, and they got what they deserved. Michael Crichton has about as much authority on the topic of patent law as he does on the topic of global warming: he's a moron who writes bad novels.

If this is all we have in our arsenal against patent abuse, we're totally, thoroughly screwed.

Re:The Patent System is Broken

[MillionthMonkey]

Yes, very much so. He's been particularly active aginst the global warming crowd. His latest novel, State of Fear, is essentially a criticism of how our society has essentially shut down all scientific debate on global warming, and how it's just the latest "sky is falling" theory to emerge to scare the general population.

GOOFUS and his graduate students do the dirty work of collecting raw data and looking for conclusions to be drawn from it.
GALLANT does the dirty work of discrediting GOOFUS by manipulating his data in Excel with statistically invalid techniques.

GOOFUS afterwards shares portions of his raw datasets only with people who have not demonstrated themselves to be full of shit and willing to abuse statistics.
GALLANT sends fiction writer Michael Crichton to the Senate to accuse GOOFUS of hiding something.

Re:The Patent System is Broken

[MechaStreisand]

I think that people don't realize that RIM is an evil company because they got attacked by ANOTHER evil company over a stupid little patent. People see that RIM fought back instead of just paying the licensing fees and think that RIM is the good guy. But they're both bad guys: RIM holds a lot of stupid patents as well, and enforces them to keep competition out. The best possible result of the RIM vs Whoever lawsuit would have been for the judge to order RIM to shut down: that way there might be enough of an impact to make influential people take a look at the patent system. Too bad that didn't happen.

Re:The Patent System is Broken

[popeguilty]

It would be more accurate to state that Chricton's book paints global warming as a fraud perpetrated by anti-business socialists in order to hurt the economy. But characterising lunacy as lunacy hurts, doesn't it?

Re:The Patent System is Broken

[jambarama]

If you have time check out my post on why the patent system is broken, and how to fix it.

A summary:
The Problem: Way too many patents are filed for, way too many patents are recieved, and not enough are enforced (uncertainty is a problem).
The Fix: Either strengthen patents considerably (making it much harder to get one, but making litigation more predictable) or weaken patents considerably (making it trivial to get a patent and hard to enforce them). Either way.

Re:The Patent System is Broken

[Chemosh667]

Do better.

Re:The Patent System is Broken

[Catiline]

If this is all we have in our arsenal against patent abuse, we're totally, thoroughly screwed.

True, just as a soldier with an unloaded gun is totally, thoroughly screwed on a battlefield. However, as long as we have anything solid to back up our collective statements and the means to affect change, why gripe about allies? Be glad that Michael Crichton is willing to be our unloaded gun and wave the issue before a larger audience.

Not lookin' good

[vishbar]

My prediction: it's going to go pro-patent. The court system has been consistently ruling against the people of the USA (i.e. Google). I don't think SCOTUS is going to be very accomodating with Sam Alito and John Roberts on the bench.

Re:Not lookin' good

[Just Some Guy]

The court system has been consistently ruling against the people of the USA (i.e. Google).

Please clarify what you mean. Are you saying that they ruled against Google, the people? Or that the ruled for Google and against the people? Care to cite the case?

Re:Not lookin' good

[Autochthonous Lagomo]

I'm thinking (and hoping) you might be wrong. From what I have been able to figure out about Roberts and Alito, they are more of the state-rights paleo-conservatives. While they are definitely the sort to overturn Roe vs Wade in favour of states being allowed to make their own decisions on abortion issues (and thus ushering in preclusions in many such states), I don't know if you are right about what they would decide here. Could be that they would look critically upon the idea, as supposed small-government conservatives who loathe the idea of more regulation and enforcement done by officials in power. Here's hoping, anyway.

Re:Not lookin' good

[Kreigaffe]

Essentially, you're right. I believe it was before Alito was on the court, but recently there was a case with Roberts.. now, this involved a small religion, I think in the south west, that used a particular psychedelic drug. Not peyote, an amazonian vine i think. Anyway, the important part is that they ruled that the religion be allowed to continue, legally, their practice -- much to the dismay of the Bush administration. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Re:Not lookin' good

[ehrichweiss]

Hey, I'm HIGHLY curious about this. Do you have a cite? They are probably talking about ayuasca(sp) or maybe ibogaine and if so I was unaware of this decision.

Re:Not lookin' good

[slashdot_commentator]

I hope he's wrong too.

Twenty years ago, I didn't have a doubt in the world that the SC would laugh out a case such as this one. But I also would never believe the Supreme Court would side with a municipal gov't's "right" to seize a homeowner's property for rich corporate interests because the municipality would get "a cut" in the future profits.

I have no idea how Roberts will vote, but Alito has a voting record that appears sympathetic towards corporate interests.

The tragedy here is that it appears the legislature does not produce law with the public good as the primary concern anymore. Patents are a legal concept to encourage economic and technological activity by creating a limited monopoly on a unique product. It never was supposed to be able to create a limited monopoly on an idea or "knowledge". That does not encourage economic and technological activity, it pretty much strangles it. Just because a law mades it possible to stretch its interpretation beyond its original intent doesn't mean it should be accomodated at every instance.

Re:Not lookin' good

[slashdot_commentator]

The commie left voted to steal the land. The conservative right voted to let the people keep their homes.

Yes. And in 2000, the Conservative Right decided to subvert Constitutional rights assigned to the states, and the Commie Left voted to defend Federalism. Congratulations. They appointed a President that deliberately broke the law and his vow to defend the Constitution when he authorized spying on American citizens without a court warrant. (Your hero. Some fucking patriot you are.)

So who was "sympathetic towards corporate interests"?

Both voting blocs in the Supreme Court. And Alito.

Your bias is so strong, it's revolting.

I call them as I see them. You, on the other hand, think you have no bias, which makes you a retard. Which explains you are too much of a coward to stand by your opinions like a man.

Out of control IP makes me wonder if

[vrimj]

maybe the tower of Babel was actually a restrictive IP regime... someone got copyright on the alphabet so someone else had to reverse-engineer to avoid licensing fees

Re:Out of control IP makes me wonder if

[cpuffer_hammer]

In some sence you may be correct. I often look at the Bible as an outlines, or ideas that bring thoughts or trends to light. So the story of the Tower Babel may be an idea that puts light on ideas and trends that are bad for communiction and understanding. It is clear that a large public domain fed ditectly and from the private domain is better for comminication and understanding than the alternative.

Re:Out of control IP makes me wonder if

[mrchaotica]

Oh, now I get it! The religious right are trying to screw up the patent system to keep us from inventing technology that can reach God!

Re:Out of control IP makes me wonder if

[ross.w]

Nah, God had to use DRM (the language thing) after they created a circumvention device (the tower) that allowed them to gain access to a protected work (God)

How you know you're at the wretched extreme

[HangingChad]

The Supreme Court of the United States will hear a landmark patent case involving whether or not thoughts and relationships are patentable.

You'd think with all the big issues facing the country something like this wouldn't pass the laugh test. Yet it's made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

If thoughts turn out to be patentable, then I'm going to be first in line to patent any sexual or obscene thought involving a virtualization of another human being, animal or farm implement used for or engaging in sexual activity, for the purpose of self-stimulation.

Then I'm going sue every one of you wankers on /. :) It'll give whole new meaning to the phrase "penny for your thoughts".

Re:How you know you're at the wretched extreme

[dangitman]

If thoughts turn out to be patentable, then I'm going to be first in line to patent any sexual or obscene thought involving a virtualization of another human being, animal or farm implement used for or engaging in sexual activity, for the purpose of self-stimulation.

Sorry, I have prior art on that.

Re:How you know you're at the wretched extreme

[mr_walrus]

>Sorry, I have prior art on that.

i did a prior over some art once....

Re:How you know you're at the wretched extreme

[91degrees]

It does seem that the next step would be to patent the process of acquiring a patent and then suing anyone who uses it. Granted, that would be too broad, but if you were slightly more specific, for example, specifying that the patent for the invention has to be in a specific field, you would end up effectively abolishing all patents in that field.

Re:How you know you're at the wretched extreme

[mrchaotica]

So what? Do you actually think the patent office cares?!

Re:How you know you're at the wretched extreme

[incabulos]

Wouldnt you regard this as a big issue? It essentially re-introduces slavery, where you have to tithe your income and other assets to corporations for the use of your own DNA. I'd say thats a significant issue. What if you dont pay, are they entitled to repossess their 'valuable IP' if it kills you in the process? Thats dystopian madness.

This mess all come about because some fool company tried to patent facts ( Which are explicitly unable to be patented for very obvious reasons ), the fool USPTO went along with this pretense, as did a federal circuit court. The correct course of action to take would be to charge all of the above with patent fraud, as they are most certainly all in violation - either as direct infringers, or as a party to the crime.

If a federal judge rules that rape or arson is ok in some particular case this does not change the law, which designates rape and arson as both being crimes.

Re:How you know you're at the wretched extreme

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

or farm implement

What's this, personal experience or extensive market research?

Re:How you know you're at the wretched extreme

[dangitman]

So what? Do you actually think the patent office cares?!

They will when they see my film - Amish Girls Gone Wild II: The Plough.

Re:How you know you're at the wretched extreme

[Valdrax]

You'd think with all the big issues facing the country something like this wouldn't pass the laugh test. Yet it's made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

No, you know we're at the wreteched extreme because the patent holders have WON at every level before the Supreme Court.

Possible angle of attack

[A Pressbutton]

Use the law against the patent holders.
If I was ill and someone actively prevented me from receiving medical aid then I am su re that that person would be breaking the law.
If the owner of the Hepatitis C virus is standing in the way of a possible cure, surely they are doing the same thing to all Hepatitis C sufferers.
I hope you can hear the rumbling of a class action lawsuit in the distance.

Before anyone responds - well fine, but this means that we should be able to sue hospitals for not providing free drugs - this is wrong - it is very unlikely that researchers will use any of the patent holders knowledge.

Re:Possible angle of attack

[tengwar]

A more elegant solution: if you hold the patent on the diabetes gene, you should be held responsible for all cases of diabetes, treated or not.

Re:Possible angle of attack

[zogger]

The feds routinely arrest quite sick people who are growing medical marijuana at their homes, in states that passed laws to "legalize" it. Yet, they still send brave and honorable jack booted thugs to arrest those people.

There's an exact medical case, where patients are denied access to medicine, all the way to threat of violence against their person if they "resist arrest", and they routinely get incarceration after guaranteed prosecution.. In this case, collusion with big pharma and artificial drugs (reefer is just too cheap, no profits if it was legit, so it stays illegal) and government surveil/command/control aspects against normal small time docs and patients.

Big money and politics of state control win. And the "courts" think that is just swell.

Good luck on class actions against the government/entrenched pharmcos, medical needs or not. The closest we have are called "elections", and those are more or less totally rigged now. Once in awhile they might re-ban a drug,slap a little fine on some company, but all in all "legitimate" medical care offs more people in the US every year than what they like to call "gun violence", yet it still goes on. If they want to deny you cheap drugs they will. If they want to deny treatments available elsewhere on the planet, they will. Just depends who is shelling out the cash this week.

I am way past cynical about it.

Re:Possible angle of attack

[Reziac]

I like your solution, but more likely the patent holder would sue you for having an unlicensed case of diabetes.

(I'm not entirely sure this is a joke, either. :(

Let's just stop science anyway...

[pimpimpim]

Never thought it would come to this, that someone came up even with this idea!

There are a lot of mechanisms in a human body, and often there are several ways to have medicines interact with malfunction systems, you can block certain receptors, or stimulate others, with more or less the same outcome. Often it is good to have medicines at hand with different working mechanisms, because not everyone will react the same. What the heck, sometimes even the formulation (coated capsule, prolonged release tablet, etc) can change a lot in the effect! There are at leat 10 mechanisms to prevent high blood pressure, for example, all using superficially similar, but in the end pretty different methods. It takes a lot of effort to figure all these mechanisms out!

If this patenting of a link between two biological levels would be defended successfully, you can forget new medicines coming. No way that any company will start investing on new medicines on anything, since most vague descriptions on how medicines work will be patented already, and there's just no money to get. You can extend this to any field, actually. Plasma screens, LEDs, OLEDS, all ways to show images without a CRT, would be idiotic of someone held the patent on them all just because he thought out one of those techniques.

Re:Let's just stop science anyway...

[griffjon]

I'm going to patent the digestive process. Not only will I be able to collect a progressive royalty (poor people eat less, therefore would pay less -- it's fair, see?) from EVERYONE in the world, I could sue anyone that gives a shit about it, is nauseated by my overreaching patent-grab, or predicts that the shit will hit the fan.

Dude, I invented "hella"

[Sargeant Slaughter]

And I'm patenting the thought of that dumbass word. So, all you Nor-Cal chumps have to pay me royalties everytime you even think of saying "hella" again.

only for subscribers

[quokkapox]

since you're not a subscriber, your tagging has no effect.

Re:only for subscribers

[fbjon]

Actually, it's "open to subscribers and some users"...

..whatever that means. I can at least input tags and submit them, does that mean I'm a golden chosen one?

US Plus!

[Mr Z]

US-Plus: We own the idea of the idea of America!

Re:US Plus!

[Mr Z]

Uh, hello? This is NOT off topic. The tagline of Firesign Theatre's imaginary entity, US Plus, is "We own the idea of America," and later that gets extended to "We own the idea of the idea of America." That's humor aimed directly at the heart of the case going to the SCOTUS. How is that off topic? The Firesigns were dead on, IMHO.

"Mmmm! Is that real pork?"

--Joe

It's starting

[quokkapox]

The general public is starting to gain an awareness of how bad things have gotten with the current patent/copyright regime. We have the recent RIM/NTP debacle, we have a NYT op-ed piece by Michael Crichton. It's a start. Oh sorry, start is patented. It's a beginning.

Re:It's starting

[thesnarky1]

Beginning? What is a beginning but thinking about the start? That'll be $2500 please, or I'll see you in court.

Wouldn't work

[NigelJohnstone]

Sony just lost another court case relating to the vibration feedback on the dual shock joysitck.
(The claim is that the eccentric wheel is attached directly to the stick not the case and that this is novel because it gives feedback directly to the stick).

I found a patent that match exactly the same feature, same linkages, same thing, an eccentric shake feeback mechanism on a joystick on an aircraft simulator from Fokker in 1980's. Yet Sony just lost another case, even though its the same thing only smaller.

The court assume the patent office has done its job.

As long as the patent office doesn't enforce novelty and non-obviousness, the same patents will keep coming up again and again and again and the courts will enforce each new one.

Re:Wouldn't work

[jimicus]

The court assume the patent office has done its job.

This is something I keep hearing, yet have trouble believing.

The US patent office has clearly given up on examining patents (except in possibly the most glaringly obvious of caases), figuring that the lawyers can battle it out in court.

The courts have decided "well, the patent was awarded so there must be some element of patentability to it".

Is it really the case that these two departments, with the hundreds, if not thousands of people they keep in employment, has yet to notice this? That nobody in the courts has actually telephoned the patent office and said "Look, I know this might be a stupid question, but are you guys actually bothering to read patent applications before you grant them?".

Re:Wouldn't work

[HiThere]

O, they've noticed. They just haven't done anything about it. The official rules say the court must presume that the patent office has done it's job properly, and it's up to the party accused of violating the property to prove otherwise. The court has often noticed that the patent office HASN'T done it's job properly, but they still follow rules that require them to presume that it has.

Caution: IANAL. Also, I don't claim to understand any patent at all, or anything about patent law, including why that patent on swinging sideways on a swing was granted. But it *MUST* be correct.

Re:Wouldn't work

[cpt kangarooski]

Not only do they have to prove it, but the burden is the clear and convincing standard, which is higher than the preponderance of the evidence standard. So it's especially hard.

Re:Wouldn't work

[bigpicture]

Society and world economics would work perfectly well without the patent or copyright systems. It would just work differently that's all. Every citizen would have equal rights to their own ideas and to how they use those ideas, without having to figure out if someone had a similar idea before them, and has been granted exclusive rights to it, thereby diminishing all others rights to the use of that idea.

It might even be something approaching a real democracy instead of the special interests pretend democracy we have today. Because does free speech, and freedom in general, not originate in the absolutely unrestricted ideas of the citizens? Patents and copyright are a subtle way of removing this freedom, and imposing restrictions, to the point where it is no different than Fascism.

Re:Wouldn't work

[Shai-kun]

Is it really the case that these two departments, with the hundreds, if not thousands of people they keep in employment, has yet to notice this? That nobody in the courts has actually telephoned the patent office and said "Look, I know this might be a stupid question, but are you guys actually bothering to read patent applications before you grant them?".

Why would they? Both parties are making good money off of it.

Re:Wouldn't work

[Fitzghon]

And further, even if the Patent Office DOES read through the patents ("hmm, yup, sounds new... APPROVED") the patent officials are probably not knowledgable enough in the field of the patent to make a judgement call as to whether or not the material really represents patentable, original ideas. The bureaucracy necessary to make appropriate decisions on the (dis)approval of every patent would be unwieldy. The USPO therefore passes off a lot of that work onto the patent holders (and suers) and the court.
Is there a better, cost-effective system that we could implement?
I don't know, but we need one.

Fitzghon

Re:Wouldn't work

[jimicus]

the patent officials are probably not knowledgable enough in the field of the patent to make a judgement call as to whether or not the material really represents patentable, original ideas.

Dammit, that's their job! If they're not knowledgeable enough thenwhy are they doing it?

Besides which, I keep on seeing people pulling prior art out in the form of existing patents. Do they not use their own database?

Re:Wouldn't work

[penguin-collective]

Is it really the case that these two departments, with the hundreds, if not thousands of people they keep in employment, has yet to notice this?

You don't quite seem to understand how real life works. The issue for the courts is not "is this reasonable", the issue for the courts is "how can I clear my backlog of cases". Well, being able to say "this patent is vaild because the USPTO says so" is a very quick and simple way of getting a case off the table.

Judges, on the whole, operate no differently from hamburger flippers, assembly line workers, and people who clean your toilets: they want to spend the least amount of time and effort necessary to get their work done; without considerably more oversight than they have today, they're going to keep making the judgements that let them get back to playing golf as quickly as possible.

Re:Wouldn't work

[stedo]

Is it really the case that these two departments, with the hundreds, if not thousands of people they keep in employment, has yet to notice this? That nobody in the courts has actually telephoned the patent office and said "Look, I know this might be a stupid question, but are you guys actually bothering to read patent applications before you grant them?".

I assume, as a /.er, you are well aware of the horredous fees that lawyers of all areas charge. You're probably also aware that a patent application costs a tidy sum. I reckon both the lawyers and the patent officers, are sitting in their rooms relaxing in front of a fire of $20 bills, while still being somewhat anxious that someone, somewhere, will find out how much money they are really making from this system and put a stop to it. Luckily for them, it hasn't happened yet.

Re:Wouldn't work

[pgpckt]

You don't quite seem to understand how real life works. The issue for the courts is not "is this reasonable", the issue for the courts is "how can I clear my backlog of cases". Well, being able to say "this patent is vaild because the USPTO says so" is a very quick and simple way of getting a case off the table.

It's more like "Because 35 USC 282 says so."

"A patent shall be presumed valid."

Geez, how many ways can you read that???

Re:Wouldn't work

[philgp]

"How many ways can you read that?" Well, there's the obvious way - head and neck vertical, looking straight at the screen. Or I can tilt my head 45 degrees to the left. I could close one eye, squint with the other, and look up at the screen while crouching in front of my desk. (I'm patenting that one, btw). There are countless other ways.

Cue the jokes about thoughtcrime...

[pla]

No, seriously... We need to remind the asshats in Washington that we consider the idea of legislating thought so obnoxious that we mock the very idea.

They might not get the jokes, but we'll still have the last laugh, one way or another...

OMG!

[consonant]

God has teh patented the entire world!!11eleven

Oh, the naivete

[metamatic]

If I was ill and someone actively prevented me from receiving medical aid then I am sure that that person would be breaking the law.

Thousands of people in the third world die every day because western corporations deny them the right to manufacture patented drugs, and they can't afford to buy them at our prices.

There have also been cases where drugs have been made unavailable at any price, because the patent holder has refused to manufacture them or license the patents. For example, Mifepristone (RU-486) was kept off the US market for a while because the patent holder was unwilling to sell a politically incorrect drug in the USA, and it took a lot of pressure to get them to license the patent.

So I'm afraid if a patent prevented you from getting vital medical aid, you would simply be allowed to die. That's the way US capitalism works.

Re:Oh, the naivete

[__aalnoi707]

I took a class on ethics and morality once. Very intersting problem arised in one of the lecture's:

Wife has a disease. Doctor has the cure for the disease which cost's $1,500. The doctor charges $5,000 for the cure to all his paitients. The Husband tells the doctor that he and the wife only have $2,000. Doctor refuses to give the cure to the wife because they dont have enough money. Husband breaks into doctor's office steals the medicine and leaves the $2,000. The question that arose was if the the husband did anything wrong or did the doctor?

should the doctor have lowered the price for this instance?

did the husband break the law by stealing the medicie but leaving enough for base cost plus a little extra?

either or the husband stole the medicine but left enough for the cost of it now the doctor is not going to be able to pay for that extra trip to the golf course.

Re:Oh, the naivete

[ultranova]

Wife has a disease. Doctor has the cure for the disease which cost's $1,500. The doctor charges $5,000 for the cure to all his paitients. The Husband tells the doctor that he and the wife only have $2,000. Doctor refuses to give the cure to the wife because they dont have enough money. Husband breaks into doctor's office steals the medicine and leaves the $2,000. The question that arose was if the the husband did anything wrong or did the doctor?

Well, the husband had the choice of breaking the law or saving his wife, and decided to save his wife. I see nothing wrong with that; compare this to hiding jews from the legitimate authority of Nazi Germany.

The doctor rather watches someone die than lowers his price. It's rather hard to see him as anything but an a-class asshole. Of course it's possible that the doctor will now go banckrupt and won't be able to treat anyone anymore, or something like that, but that goes to the realm of speculation.

It's the old question of "is it right to steal bread to feed your starving children ?" And of course the best solution is publically funded socialized medical system where such situations simply won't happen, since the government pays for medicine and bread.

Now let's see how many libertarians will pipe in to complain about how wrong it is that they should be taxed to saved someone elses life.

Re:Oh, the naivete

[Rhsqueak]

This is kind of a grey area in Medical Ethics. This is from the AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512.html :

Article VI: A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.

Article IX: A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.

Article VI gives physicians a way out by allowing them to bow out of any non-emergency case. THe AMA's codified policies have a bit more to say

http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n= browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/E-2.095.HTM&&s_t=&st_p= &nth=1&prev_pol=policyfiles/HnE/E-1.02.HTM&nxt_pol =policyfiles/HnE/E-2.01.HTM&

Because society has an obligation to make access to an adequate level of health care available to all of its members regardless of ability to pay, physicians should contribute their expertise at a policy-making level to help achieve this goal. In determining whether particular procedures or treatments should be included in the adequate level of health care, the following ethical principles should be considered: (1) degree of benefit (the difference in outcome between treatment and no treatment), (2) likelihood of benefit, (3) duration of benefit, (4) cost, and (5) number of people who will benefit (referring to the fact that a treatment may benefit the patient and others who come into contact with the patient, as with a vaccination or antimicrobial drug). Ethical principles require that a just process be used to determine the adequate level of health care. To ensure justice, the process for determining the adequate level of health care should include the following considerations: (1) democratic decision making with broad public input at both the developmental and final approval stages, (2) monitoring for variations in care that cannot be explained on medical grounds with special attention to evidence of discriminatory impact on historically disadvantaged groups, and (3) adjustment of the adequate level over time to ensure continued and broad public acceptance. Because of the risk that inappropriate biases will influence the content of the basic benefits package, it may be desirable to avoid rigid or precise formulas to define the specific components of the basic benefits package. After applying the five ethical values listed above, it will be possible to designate some kinds of care as either clearly basic or clearly discretionary. However, for care that is not clearly basic or discretionary, seemingly objective formulas may result in choices that are inappropriately biased. For that care, therefore, it may be desirable to give equal consideration (eg, through a process of random selection) to the different kinds of care when deciding which will be included in the basic benefits package. The mechanism for providing an adequate level of health care should ensure that the health care benefits for the poor will not be eroded over time. (VII) Issued June 1994 based on the report "Ethical Issues in Health System Reform: The Provision of Adequate Health Care," adopted December 1993 (JAMA. 1994; 272: 1056-62).

In theory there is some mandate that a doctor must provide needed care regardless of cost, however the policy is not black and white so there are loopholes.

Re:Oh, the naivete

[Just Some Guy]

So I'm afraid if a patent prevented you from getting vital medical aid, you would simply be allowed to die. That's the way US capitalism works.

That's the unfortunate truth. On the other hand, how many life-saving drugs have been invented in non-Capitalist economies in the last 50 years?

Re:Oh, the naivete

[metamatic]

How many non-capitalist economies are there that aren't under active economic warfare?

Re:Oh, the naivete

[drsmithy]

should the doctor have lowered the price for this instance?

Yes. More accurately, the Doctor should not be charging so much in the first place.

did the husband break the law by stealing the medicie but leaving enough for base cost plus a little extra?

Yes. Note that this does not mean he did anything wrong.

You appear to be conflating "wrong" with "illegal" (your first question uses the term "wrong", your last the term "illegal"). "Illegal" does not imply "wrong" any more than "wrong" implies "illegal".

Re:Oh, the naivete

[ccmay]

It's the old question of "is it right to steal bread to feed your starving children ?" And of course the best solution is publically funded socialized medical system where such situations simply won't happen, since the government pays for medicine and bread.

Actually, socialism steals bread from everyone. Exhibit A, Zimbabwe.

-ccm

Re:Oh, the naivete

[metamatic]

Depends if you're in Minnesota in winter and they're going to die of exposure otherwise.

Re:Oh, the naivete

[PsiPsiStar]

Well, the husband had the choice of breaking the law or saving his wife, and decided to save his wife. I see nothing wrong with that;

It's a mitigating circumstance, certainly. Would your opinion be different if the medicine cost $1,000,000 and the theif still left only $2000 (all he had?)

What if the medicine cost $10,000,000 to produce and $1 each to manufacture and was being sold at $1000 a pill.

The problem is, it's easier to enter into business where you're selling worthless junk than it is to enter into lifesaving fields like medicine. If you're selling worthless junk, noone cares if you overcharge, if you mess up, etc. In medicine, a person doesn't even start to break even financially until their early thirties at least. And if there's not enough incentive to make that sacrifice, you're going to have a doctor shortage. Which (surprise!) we do.

The HMOs trying to manage costs ought to be paying for people to go through medical school. It's that investment and commitment that they're essentially leaching off of.

My only beef against the drug industries are that they don't follow the rules. They put out misleading information (Searle was trying to argue that COX-1 served no function in adult humans because they were pushing Celebrex, a selective COX-2 inhibitor) or else they patent things that aren't theres (consider the history of AZT. Finally a Canadian company basically said 'the US patent is BS. We're making the stuff and if they want to sue us they'll lose. Not that AZT was a particularly wonderful drug. But I digress...)

And of course the best solution is publically funded socialized medical system where such situations simply won't happen, since the government pays for medicine and bread.

There aren't enough resources for everyone to receive the maximum standard of care. Just because it's government funded doesn't mean that it's free. There will always be trade offs between costs and benefits. And those with more money will be better positioned to procure resources.

Re:Oh, the naivete

[CharlesEGrant]

I took a class on ethics and morality once. Very interesting problem arised in one of the lecture's:

It is an interesting problem, but why make it so hypothetical? I have a nice house, a car, hundreds of books, a cell phone, several computers, and an I-pod. I could sell some or even of all this stuff and send the money to help refugees in Darfur or Kenya. It's not like I'd even be suffering: I could move into a studio apartment, my employer provides a computer for me at work, and I could borrow the books and music from the local public library. I have no doubt that I could raise enough money to save several lives. Yet I don't. Am I any less culpable or heartless then the doctor in your example? How much of your labor do you give away at below market rates to worthy causes?

Re:Oh, the naivete

[k_187]

exactly

Re:Oh, the naivete

[Anonymous Coward]

Thousands of people in the third world die every day because western corporations deny them the right to manufacture patented drugs, and they can't afford to buy them at our prices.

People die in the United States because hospitals refuse to treat them because they don't have insurance. Other people die because their insurance company drags its feet paying for chemo hoping their customer dies before they have to pay any more money. There's no need to drag third-world nations into this argument.

Time to eliminate patents

[Surt]

Patents do nothing but stifle innovation. Time to get rid of patents and put everything squarely into copyright. Let independent invention work to the benefit of everyone.

Re:Time to eliminate patents

[Surt]

That's not necessary in a couple of ways:

1) we can move to a publicly funded research model (which would have the added advantage of preferring cures to maintenance drugs)
and/or
2) we can allow copyright protections on drugs, which would mean that any rip-off cure would have to be significantly chemically different.

Re:Time to eliminate patents

[Teancum]

I completely agree. I got into a major arguement earlier here on /. with a patent attorney over this very issue, and the conversation further convinced me of this concept.

Regardless of what endeavor of engineering I might participate in (and I do consider myself to be primarily an engineer), I fail to see any benefit at all to any kind of patent, including mechanical engineering... the classical example of patents.

I strongly consider patent attorneys to be simply fronts for a massive scam, and a modest revenue source for the U.S. Government. The expansion of patentable items is happening precisely because of the money that can be generated by this agency, which essentially pays for itself and even provides a modest surplus that doesn't need strict accounting, and can even be diverted to black ops if necessary. Talk about a conflict of interest on the part of the government here that is hearing the case.

Far too often I personnally know of people that have filed a patent, only to get themselves raked over the coals and have their "inventions" taken away anyway. A classical example is my grandfather, who patented about 30 different inventions and spent a minor fortune on attorney costs and filing fees for all that work. I think he got a total of about $2000 in royalties for all that work. One of his patents is explicitly cited as a fore-runner to Compact Discs (and subsequent technologies like the DVD) and developed encryption technologies that have been used by the NSA.

Unfortunately this is more of a typical example and not the exception. It is a very strong exception where a genuinely innovative concept is patented and a major company "buys" the patent and pays royalties to the inventor. Far too often a patent is filed strictly by a major company to protect themselves from any other idiot who also tries to file a competing patent that is subsequently accepted by the USPTO. The other use is to do a business negotiation where patents are "swapped", such as what happened with MPEG-4 and the DVD Forum (formerly the DVD Consortium).

The only practical benefit that I can see from patents right now is that they can preserve for future generations different techniques and manufacturing concepts, including assembly guidelines and how things are made. The problem with this attitude is that a typical patent application is so sparse that even somebody "learned in the art" can hardly recreate the patented process. They usually go into just enough detail to muddy the waters if there is an "infringement", and are so vague and interpreted so broadly by courts that you can't really even know if what you are doing violates a patent until after you have been slapped by a lawyer with a lawsuit.

Furthermore, engineers are explicitly told never to read any patents, under fear by management that they might "accidently" incorporate a patented idea into their design. So what is the real pratical benefit other than to keep a group of lawyers wealthy?

Re:Time to eliminate patents

[howlingmadhowie]

this is another reason why open source software is making such incredible progress. you are allowed (and encouraged) to look at the work or others and incorporate it into your own work.

how much would einstein have achieved, if the work of maxwell, michelson and morley et al. had not been available to view?

howie

Re:Time to eliminate patents

[Maximum Prophet]

You should read some Don Lancaster. http://www.tinaja.com/ He used to offer a prize to anyone who could name an individual who made real money off a patent. He claimed most inventors could make money by giving away samples and licensing stuff. Companies hate small patents holders, and will spend more money breaking a patent than it would cost to buy it, but they will license unpatented stuff. See also, Philo T Farnsworth.

The first thin wedge

[Stephen Samuel]

Hopefully the SCOTUS has chosen this as a poster boy for the inanity of the current Patent system... The first thin wedge of peeling back the move to patent any and everything including software.

I have a dream .....

Re:The first thin wedge

[bcmg150]

I have a dream ..... And I patented it.

Re:The first thin wedge

[the eric conspiracy]

In actuality that is quite possible. This is the first time the Supreme Court has heard a case on the scope of patentable subject matter, and it is quite possible that this case will have a profound effect on software and business process patents.

See the following for some speculation on the topic.

http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/10/supreme-c ourt-takes-patentable-subject.html

It may actuall be a fat wedge.

Re:The first thin wedge

[macdaddy357]

SCOTUS n. A highly sensitive patch of skin between the legs running from the genitalia, to the anus. Usage: Yo, Bitch! Lick my SCOTUS.

Re:The first thin wedge

[alienw]

Doubt it. The Supreme Court usually makes a determination with as narrow a scope as possible. Not to mention, the court now has an extreme Republican bias, so there's about a 90% chance they will rule in favor of the patent holder in this case.

Re:The first thin wedge

[the eric conspiracy]

Republican bias = contructionism. That generally means reading the existing law narrowly, which would tend to limit the scope for patents.

Re:The first thin wedge

[alienw]

Uh, no. Republican bias = favoring large corporations, at least when it comes to commercial matters. Let's not forget that it was the Reagan administration that created this entire problem by widening the scope of patents.

Re:The first thin wedge

[the eric conspiracy]

Let's not forget that it was the Reagan administration that created this entire problem by widening the scope of patents.

How do you reach THAT conclusion? Business process patents weren't allowed until 1998. This is the single largest increase in patent scope this century.

No, the big increase in what is considered patentable is much more recent than Reagan's administration.

Re:The first thin wedge

[MrYotsuya]

How do you reach THAT conclusion? Business process patents weren't allowed until 1998. This is the single largest increase in patent scope this century.

I suppose it does, for different values of "this century".

Psst. It's 2006 buddy.

Re:The first thin wedge

[alienw]

Well, the downward spiral started in the 80s. I am not too familiar with patent history, but I seem to remember that is when software patents came into existence (don't quote me on this, I may be wrong).

In any case, patents are very profitable for large corporations, since they can use them to keep competitors out of the market. For instance, you can't just come in and start manufacturing PC hard drives or CPUs, because the existing manufacturers have all the patents and they are usually cross-licensed. It's the same with software, business methods (just try starting an eBay competitor), and so on. I don't see any reason why Republicans would be against a broad patent scope, since it seems to be rather profitable for large companies.

Re:The first thin wedge

[Alsee]

What the hell does SCOTUS mean?

define:SCOTUS

• an ancient monetary unit, 1/24 of a grzywna

• Supreme Court Of The United States

-

Re:The first thin wedge

[the eric conspiracy]

At dictionary.com the first meaning of century is a period of 100 years. It doesn't have to start or end on a particular date.

Re:The first thin wedge

[the eric conspiracy]

Well, the first software patent was granted in 1962. But I do agree that software patents did increase dramatically in the 1980's, but there were a lot of economic reasons for that - this is the period of time the PC took off. However it wasn't really until 1996 that the rules on patenting software were firmly established.

So I don't think that you can tie software patents to one particular president.

Another area of controversy is biotech patents, and again the real precedence in that area came before Reagan took office.

I don't see any reason why Republicans would be against a broad patent scope, since it seems to be rather profitable for large companies.

The Republican party is not exactly a homogeneous entity. There are religous, economic and judicial conservatives all under that banner. The mantra of the judicial conservative is to read laws narrowly, and many of the recent judicial appointments fall into that category.

Re:The first thin wedge

[Valdrax]

Not necessarily. Remember the recent case about whether or not governments could use eminent domain to seize private property (like homes) and hand it over to another private interest (like Wal-mart or a housing developer) for community economical benefit reasons? The Court voted in favor of allowing this with the conservatives being most strongly against it saying that it gave government and corporations unprecdented power with the liberal wing saying that if government had the power to condemn slums using the same power, then economic benefit is no less valid of a reason.

This is because the conservative wing of the court cares strongly about private property rights. In this case, they sided against big business because it was one of the rare cases where the interests of big business where in conflict with the expansion of property rights.

That said, expanding patent law to cover more and more absurd things is an expansion of property rights. On the other hand, there is very clear reasoning for showing that this would not only fail to promote the Sciences and the Arts (a strict Constitutionalist approach). Furthermore, this would really screw over a lot of big businesses and lead to a strangling economic death of the USA. I wouldn't be surprised if they came out against it even though the court has generally been in favor of expanding the domain of patents to cover more and more things.

Please please PLEASE RTFA

[consonant]

It is brilliantly written.

Especially the ending - I reproduce it here (spoiler warning :-P)

I wanted to end this essay by telling a story about how current rulings hurt us, but the patent for "ending an essay with an anecdote" is owned. So I thought to end with a quotation from a famous person, but that strategy is patented, too. I then decided to end abruptly, but "abrupt ending for dramatic effect" is also patented. Finally, I decided to pay the "end with summary" patent fee, since it was the least expensive.

The Supreme Court should rule against Metabolite, and the Patent Office should begin to reverse its strategy of patenting strategies. Basic truths of nature can't be owned.

Oh, and by the way: I own the patent for "essay or letter criticizing a previous publication." So anyone who criticizes what I have said here had better pay a royalty first, or I'll see you in court.

Re:Please please PLEASE RTFA

[mccoma]

Oh, and by the way: I own the patent for "essay or letter criticizing a previous publication."

Dude is going to make a mint off slashdot

Re:Please please PLEASE RTFA

[Potor]

actually, i thought it was brilliantly written until the the end, when he pulls out and flogs to death that inane /. joke (which is just one level above quoting monty python or office space).

isn't this more simple than that?

[zappepcs]

The relationship between physical things, such as B12 and some disease is not an invention, it is an observation. Thinking that there is a relationship is not licensed, and therefore cannot be held as private works. Proving the relationship is, more or less, like writing a book. Once you've written it, no one else can claim they did it first. That still doesn't give anyone the right to say no one else can use that relationship, even for the length of a patent.

Thoughts are not inventions, and patent law does not apply. The reason for patent laws was to allow those who acted on their thoughts first to use them for some gain. There has to be an 'invention' for any patent to be issuable, and a discovery of how nature works is not an invention, just as no one can patent 'air' or gravity, no one can patent the relationship between two things that happens in nature.

An example: Many thought of powered flight, but it was the Wright brothers who did it. There is a show on cable lately about how Star Trek created the modern world, or many of the technologies in it, yet the show's creators and writers do not have patents on things like the ion drive, or medical technologies. If this is not smacked down HARD, it will be science fiction writers who own the world in the next century, and they will not be friendly to big business IMO.

Mr. Clarke gave us communications satellites (IIRC) and other science fiction writers would have dibs on tons of things that big business just can't get their minds around yet, like say... talking computers? Mining technologies? cures for diseases? ... the list goes on.

Once that is pointed out to the lawyers I think it will all die the quick death of "That was a fscking bad idea, fire the guy who thought of that"....

Re:isn't this more simple than that?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Indeed, it is not an invention. It is in fact an observation. But since they were the first to claim to have observed this fact, they "discovered" it. Patents don't just apply to inventions.

Re:isn't this more simple than that?

[dbIII]

There is a show on cable lately about how Star Trek created the modern world

Are you serious or having a joke here?

like the ion drive

That's a bit older than Star Trek, as for the medical technologies - waving a magic wand to fix things is not a new idea. In a couple of years people may well be saying a ramen spectrometer is like a tricorder - but Trek had nothing to do with it apart from having a magic box that could identify anything.

Re:isn't this more simple than that?

[penguin-collective]

Patents don't just apply to inventions.

Well, obviously not, since patents have been granted on things that can't be built, on known prior art, and a lot of other things that, according to the letter of the law shouldn't be patentable.

So, we aren't discussing here what patents "apply" to in our misguided implementation of the patent system, we are discussing what they should apply to according to the letter and spirit of patent law, and whether even the letter of patent law is good public policy.

simple really...

[srussia]

The USPTO has a page clearly explaining what can be patented:

A few choice excerpts:
In the language of the statute, any person who "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,"

The terms are then defined:
The word "process" is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes.
So "process" really means processes, and "acts" and "methods" as well.

The term "machine" used in the statute needs no explanation.
Gee, thanks for that "explanation".

Some more gems:
The term "manufacture" refers to articles which are made, and includes all manufactured articles.
These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything which is made by man and the processes for making the products.
The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose

These guys really need a primer on "circular definitions".

I'll be happy to start them off: Circular definitions are definitions that are, ya know, circular.

Re:simple really...

[HiThere]

They may not just be circular. If they make you want to start cursing, read a little more and recurse.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

patent invention

[backwardMechanic]

I'm going to patent the idea of inventing stuff. Ha!

Re:patent invention

[KenDodd]

Too late! I have just filed a patent for the idea of *thinking* about inventing stuff! Huh! :-)

Re:patent invention

[backwardMechanic]

But I have a patent on thinking of smart ways to stop me getting rich. Talk to my lawyers!

But

[KenDodd]

Hey, I was the first to think of patenting thoughts! Watch out underlings of the Justice Department, I plan to unleash a rabid, underfed pack of IP lawyers on you very soon. :)

Re:But

[Cheapy]

Thank God the Justice Department doesn't think anymore ;)

Just charge for any transaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Just charge for any transaction, whether it be video to the eyes, thoughts to the brain, or actions to reactions. Forget patents, just call them "transactions" and charge for everything. Of course everyone will want their fair share, so the profits made from this will go to the poor companies not making any products that can't make money like all of the companies that just produce things customers want, just like we have taxes on writable media now to compensate distribution companies, etc.

Good point

[LeonGeeste]

The things you can patent is getting larger and larger, and of course, when you sue, you can't reveal too much about how they infringe until trial. I predict that one day, they will patent "innovative problem solving", so if you move a box to stand on it and get over a wall, that's covered. I mean, why not? Offering immediate tender prices ("buy it now" prices) is patentable? Thousands of books consider reducing storage time, but like, only when it helps to be a novel idea. How long until they consider some ill-defined "problem-solving method" patentable?

Re:Good point

[fbjon]

Thousands of books consider reducing storage time, but like, only when it helps to be a novel idea.

And how long until those books form a union and revolt against the warehouse establishment?

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[tepples]

Literal infringement requires infringement of every single element in a claim.

It also requires infringement of every element of only one claim in a given patent.

Outsourcing?

[DarthChris]

US patents (currently) only hold in the US. What's to stop companies from researching these topics in countries un-encumbered by screwed patent/copyright laws?
Or do I just have a simplistic view of the world?

Re:Outsourcing?

[91degrees]

I don't think anything is. However, any research based on these ideas would still be unusable in the US. The rest of the world is quite a large place, so the scientific research would still happen. The problem is that the US would be unable to benefit.

Re:Outsourcing?

[Petrushka]

I'm afraid so. When the USA enters into any kind of trade agreement with another country, it's not just about taxes and tariffs: especially in recent years, the USA puts pressure on the other country to "harmonise" its laws with the USA in various respects, including intellectual property laws. This happened especially prominently with the free trade agreement between the USA and Australia (details courtesy of Wikipedia), when Australia agreed to extend copyright to life-plus-70-years and introduce legislation to enforce the use of DRM.

Obligatory statement

[null etc.]

I have been advised that I have an obligation to post the following cliche joke:

I'm gonna patent the act of creating stupid patents.

I understand that the preceding joke was a cliche, posted to every /. story regarding patents. However, the cliche review board noticed that such a joke was lacking on this thread, and hence forced me to post it. Please do not punish my karma for this. Thank you.

Ah, but

[XanC]

Patents expire much quicker than copyrights, and then the drug (or whatever) is in the public domain, and has been published for all to see.

Re:Ah, but

[gnarlin]

Thats is not a good reason not to abolish the patent system. Like so: 1. The patent system stifles inovation 2. Therefore we shall abolish the patent system 3. copyrights also stifles sharing and the creation of useful science and arts. 4. Therefore let us NOT abolish the patent system?! wtf?! This might be a better solution: 1. The patent system stifles inovation 2. Therefore we shall abolish the patent system and use copyrights instead. 3. copyrights also stifles sharing and the creation of useful science and arts mostly due to it's current duration (70+years after the authors death). 4. Therefore we shall severely reduce the scope and duration of copyright so more material will go into the public domain for current and future generations to learn more from and use in their useful science and arts without spending the lifes in court.

Re:Ah, but

[gnarlin]

Damnit, damnit. Someone had patented having html formats in the text, so I will resubmit using clear text only.
Thats is not a good reason NOT to abolish the patent system.
Like so:
1. The patent system stifles inovation
2. Therefore we shall abolish the patent system
3. copyrights also stifles sharing and the creation of useful science and arts.
4. Therefore let us NOT abolish the patent system?! wtf?!

This might be a better solution:
1. The patent system stifles inovation
2. Therefore we shall abolish the patent system and use copyrights instead.
3. copyrights also stifles sharing and the creation of useful science and arts mostly due to it's current duration (70+years after the authors death).
4. Therefore we shall severely reduce the scope and duration of copyright so more material will go into the public domain for current and future generations to learn more from and use in their useful science and arts without spending the lifes in court.

inciting others to infringe thought patents

[Eric Smith]

Michael Crichton's essay in the New York Times attempts a thoughtful summary of Metabolite's primary assertion: they not only own the connection between homocysteine levels in the blood and vitamin B12 deficiency, but also any thought connecting the two

Great. So MC has not only infringed the Metabolite patent by thinking about the connection between homocysteine levels and vitamin B12 deficiency, but by publishing the article he has incited all the readers to also infringe the patent. And now I'm probably inciting more people to infringe.

I win this game

[hyperbotfly]

1. Patent the patent system 2. ??? 3. PROFIT!

I am Scotus of Borg

[Prototerm]

The Patent Office shall add your distinctivenes to our own. Resistance (as well as ohms, voltage, and other scientific knowledge) is futile.

Re:And read the briefs too.

[thrillseeker]

"the Inventors have patented a particular application of that correlation, when used as a sequential step in a diagnostic method" ... they aren't asking for a patent on the correlation, or even on thoughts, about the correlation, even though that's how LabCorp has tried to characterize it

Yes they are. Without being able to reason about a necessary step to arrive at a conclusion, the conclusion may not be logically arrived at. The application of logic is sometimes called Thought. What do you think doctors should do ... see the need to do a particular test to determine a relationship, and just wave their hands instead and jump to an unsupported conclusion?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Actually, that is copyrighted

[Teancum]

and please send the royalty recept to the heirs of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Seriously.

CBS television was sued, successfully, for copyright infringement because they played back the (now infamous from this perspective) "I Have a Dream" speech that they recorded with their own cameras and recording equipment.

This is yet another example of how intellectual property laws are simply getting absurd. It is driving me nuts enough that I wonder why I even write or do anything that requires thought.

Re:Actually, that is copyrighted

[gnarlin]

Pretty please with sugar on top, don't use that term. It is confusing the issue.

Re:Actually, that is copyrighted

[cpt kangarooski]

CBS television was sued, successfully, for copyright infringement because they played back the (now infamous from this perspective) "I Have a Dream" speech that they recorded with their own cameras and recording equipment.

The speech that King had written down first? There was a nice question as to publication without registration involving that speech (which was ultimately decided wrongly, IMO) but just because they filmed it doesn't mean much.

Re:Actually, that is copyrighted

[HappyEngineer]

He also made that speech in a public place. A speaker in a public place should have no expectation of copyright control over anything they say outside. If someone films me talking with a friend outside the grocery store, do they owe me money if they rebroadcast that conversation?

Obviously, legally I'm wrong here. But from a WTF standpoint I think I'm pretty solid. This is just another unreasonable copyright law.

Re:Actually, that is copyrighted

[cpt kangarooski]

He also made that speech in a public place. A speaker in a public place should have no expectation of copyright control over anything they say outside.

Well now you're just being silly. Copyright is meant to, among other things, encourage publication of works. Where the work first appears shouldn't be relevant.

Re:Actually, that is copyrighted

[HappyEngineer]

Well now you're just being silly. Copyright is meant to, among other things, encourage publication of works. Where the work first appears shouldn't be relevant.

Well yes, but there is (or should be) a difference between a public act and publishing something. If I go to a play then obviously I can't just videotape that and rebroadcast it. But, if I see a mime performing a show on the street then I see no reason why I should be restricted from videotaping and rebroadcasting that.

If someone gives a speech or lecture at an event then that could reasonably be seen as copyrightable. But if I stand up on the steps of city hall and read a prepared speech then I see no reason why anyone would need to ask my permission to videotape and rebroadcast it.

Re:Actually, that is copyrighted

[Teancum]

I hate using the term too. It is overly broad, and is an attempt to regulate thoughts and speech, in the classic 1st Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution type of speech as well. I don't know how courts can interpret "Congress shall pass no law..." and at the same time enforce laws that have been written that restricts such speech.

BTW, that is the rationale, but unspoken by Mr. Crichton, as to why he thinks he can get away with what is being said in his essay. He is clearly invoking his freedom of speech here and in effect daring a real idiot to sue him, knowing that his celebrety nature alone would bring stature and status to any attempted lawsuit. That and trying to take on the New York Times about this issue would be legal suicide... for the pharmaceutical company trying to defend this patent in this manner.

Re:Actually, that is copyrighted

[osgeek]

That's pretty rich, since King plagiarized a portion of that speech.

Too funny.

Poorly researched, poorly argued

[Phronesis]

Crichton whines that the relationship between B vitamins and homocysteine is patented without appearing to have read the papers published in NEJM this week demonstrating quite persuasively that this relationship has no clinical value: vitamin B supplements for patients with high homocysteine don't affect patient outcomes.

Second, Crichton whines about the patents on the Hep-C virus genome. What he doesn't mention is for a decade no one managed to isolate Hep C virus or sequence its genome. Chiron took a big gamble and succeeded where everyone else had failed. If there were no patent rights in the offing, would we even have a Hepatitis C genome sequence to squabble over? This is a debatable question, but Chrichton is more interested in taking cheap shots than in substance. This is quite in character for him.

Finally, Crichton complains about people potentially patenting ways to end an essay, but perhaps he is so sensitive about this because he plagiarized the Afterword to State of Fear from Richard Lindzen. Crichton copies (without attribution) the thesis of Lindzen's 1985 essay, Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics. It's interesting that with all Crichton's footnotes and bilbiographic apparatus, he never references this essay or offers Lindzen credit for the ideas.

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[LeonGeeste]

Odd definition of plagiarism there. Crichton argued the same general idea as Lindzen. You're not obligated to cite everyone who argues the same idea, only when you're quoting them or using them to bolster your thesis. If I say "you know, adding garlic to butter before putting it on bread is a good idea", no one's obligated to cite me if they want to also recomment adding garlic to butter for putting it on bread -- even if they got it from me. If they use those words, or something very close to it, then you have a case.

In any case, Crichton is a pretty bright guy. I doubt he even got those ideas from Lindzen.

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[dookus]

Whether a patent has clinical value, or whether anyone has managed to act on a patent is besides (way off in another universe, actually) the point. The mind reels at the possibility that something as fundamental as a genome or a biochemical mechanism can be owned. (Patent) lawyers have managed to drive common sense into extinction.

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[Quixote]

Crichton whines that the relationship between B vitamins and homocysteine is patented without appearing to have read the papers published in NEJM this week demonstrating quite persuasively that this relationship has no clinical value: vitamin B supplements for patients with high homocysteine don't affect patient outcomes.

You are a certified, class A moron. Did you even try to understand what Crichton was saying? He's not arguing about whether the relationship has any clinical value or not; he's arguing that the patent should not have been granted.

It is you who is whining with a poorly-researched, poorly argued post.

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[Phronesis]

I agree that it's a bit ridiculous to patent the relationship between B vitamins and homocysteine, but if this were a problem in real life, rather than just in paranoid fantasy, shouldn't Crichton be able to come up with examples of where it's actually caused problems? The whole essay seems to be a paranoid fantasy that someone will patent the rights to his next novel rather than a demonstration that there are actual problems in the real world.

I agree that there are actual real-worl problems with patent abuse and the fact that Crichton couldn't be bothered to look any of them up points to his intellectual laziness.

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[Phronesis]

Interesting notion that he came up with the ideas independently. He writes a book about global warming in which he cites several scientific papers by Lindzen. He makes his hero a global-warming contrarian professor at MIT. Lindzen is the only well-known MIT professor who denies that global warming is a threat. Then just coincidentally, he has an idea that Lindzen has published in a book and posted on his web site and we're expected to believe that Crichton never saw it.

I find it easier to believe that he lifted the idea from Lindzen and didn't give credit.

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[LeonGeeste]

So now, not only can you copyright a book, you can copyright the citation of a book.

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[penguin-collective]

Crichton's post is poorly researched and poorly argued because the only factual case he gives us of a bad patent is of a useless one.

What matters is that the patent office has been willing to grant this patent and that the courts are willing to enforce it. Whether the patent is on something actually useful or important is completely irrelevant. And the mere existence of such a patent causes harm because it constitutes prior art for other patents.

I'm sorry, but I have to say: the moron here is YOU.

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[Russ Nelson]

Chiron took a big gamble and succeeded where everyone else had failed. If there were no patent rights in the offing, would we even have a Hepatitis C genome sequence to squabble over?

So ... you're arguing that nobody ever invents anything unless it can be patented. Do you have any evidence that this assertion is true, or did you just pull it from your butt? (Obviously, you are incorrect, thus that entire paragraph can be struck out.)

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[Phronesis]

So now, not only can you copyright a book, you can copyright the citation of a book.

Your comment is a complete non-sequitur. Copyright violation and plagiarism are two completely separate things. If I photocopy Crichton's book and sell it without his permission, I have violated his copyright without plagiarising him. If I steal his ideas and write a different book inspired by his book, but don't give him credit, I have commited plagiarism without violating his copyright (you can't copyright an idea, only a particular expression of an idea).

Crichton used Lindzen's ideas without giving credit. He didn't steal a footnote from Lindzen's essay, as you imply. He stole the ideas. It is stealing not because of copyright issues, but because he didn't give credit. Is this clear?

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[Phronesis]

Let me try to make myself clear here: Crichton's essay in the Times provides evidence that the patent office made a stupid decision. No doubt about that. What his essay doesn't do is provide any reason why the average voter should care.

This is important because if he wants his readers to do anything, such as write their Representatives and Senators, he needs to show why they should take the trouble. If he's not going to give the reader any evidence why he should care about stupidity at the patent office, why's he bothering to write an op-ed in the Times? This is why the essay is bad.

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[Phronesis]

I'm not arguing that nobody ever invents anything useful without patent rights. We get inventions with or without patent rights, but I'm arguing that there evidence (not conclusive, but not trivial either) that we get more inventions with patent rights than without them. This is the basis for having a Patent office in the first place.

Nobody except Chiron managed either to isolate or sequence Hep-C desipite over ten years of hard work. Chiron clearly would not have had the money to do the job successfully if its investors did not think it could turn a profit. I am not arguing that we know for certain that without Chrion, no one else would have succeeded. That's what I meant in my original post when I wrote, "If there were no patent rights in the offing, would we even have a Hepatitis C genome sequence to squabble over? This is a debatable question. "

My point was not that the answer to the question was obviously "no," but that Crichton never bothered to address the question at all. He simply assumes that without patent rights Chiron or someone else would have made the discovery. Your question to me is fair, but it's also fair to ask whether Crichton has any evidence that the discovery would have been made without patent rights or whether he pulled his assertion out of his butt.

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[Russ Nelson]

I don't think we can limit the discussion to just the one invention. The real question is not simply "Did patent rights create enough MORE potential for profit to enable Chiron to get the funding to allow them to keep working", but instead "Are the restriction in availability caused by the monopolies granted over all patentable technologies justified by the increase in the number or speed of invented technologies?" You can't point to one (arguably) successful patent and then say that all patents are thus worthwhile.

Re:Poorly researched, poorly argued

[Phronesis]

Exactly. I agree with you completely. My point was only that Crichton didn't raise any of these issues. He assumes that it's bad for Chiron to have a patent on a genome (something that's clearly not an invention). He then raises paranoid fantasies about people patenting essay forms, but never engages the reader in a reasoned argument that stupid patents such as Chiron's or the patent for the seemingly useless connection between B vitamins and homocysteine actually harm the public interest.

A good essay, and I think you could have written a much better one than Crichton, might have followed the lines of reasoning you introduce above and present a case for reforming patents. You might say, The patent office issues stupid patents. Here are the reasons why stupid patents hurt the public interest. Therefore it's worth the public's time to write legislators and ask for patent reform.

Crichton, on the other hand, writes: The patent office issues stupid patents. Here are some paranoid fanatsies about where this might lead. Don't worry your little heads about whether this is actually hurts the public interest, just take my word that it's bad and go write your Congressman.

Re:Mod parent, please

[Ecko7889]

mod parent up++

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[the eric conspiracy]

I agree, and as far as I am concerned the publication of an article in the NYT that is so obviously full of factual errors exposes the editorial staff of what used to be a great newspaper as incompetant.Such ridiculous articles do nothing to further and in reality detract from efforts to promote real and needed patent reform.

The US patent process has some serious problems chief amoung them being the granting of business process patents and secondarily granting patents for material that does not actually constitute an invention. Congress should make it clear in patent reform legislation that a patent should only be granted for something novel and useful, and business proceses should not be covered. Software patents are an area of great abuse at present - many trivial ideas are being patented.

BTW, the following article describes in a much more cogent way the issues with this particular case than the Crichton editorial.

http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/10/labcor p_v_metab_1.html

Acronyms

[feagle814]

I'm not sure I like the new SCOTUS acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States. I mean, what would we call a Supreme Court Ruling of the United States?

Re:Acronyms

[astonishedelf]

How about SCROTUM?

Re:Acronyms

[slashdotmsiriv]

And you are right not to like it. In ancient greek "SKOTOS" means darkness. So it is connotated with evil, lack of intellectual progress, conspiracy whatever ...
Not to mention the fact that an idiot could think that "scotus" is the latin of "skotos" ...

Re:Acronyms

[eraser.cpp]

SCOUS is the typical abbreviation for the US Supreme Court.

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[TemporalBeing]

It means that if a real estate agent lists a house for sale, he can be sued because an existing patent for selling houses includes item No. 7, "List the house."

Obviously Mr. Crichton has not been informed of the "all elements" rule.
Literal infringement requires infringement of every single element in a claim. Although it is technically true that "he can be sued", it is also true that anyone can be sued at any time for anything. The point is, the case would be dismissed.

Not so, while IANAL, you only need to infringe on one of the claims of the patent. He is actually quite right.

I know this only from working with an algorithm that is under going the patent process. The first implementation of the algorithm - around which the patent was written - was fully described in the patent, including the user interface (it's software) and numerous other things unrelated to the actual algorithm but related to the functionality of the software. The second implementation of the algorithm as a work of software improved the user interface substantially and lacks the described user interface while continuing to provide the same functionality in a different manner (the claim makes note of a button that performs a specific task; the button was removed and replaced with a menu item, which it not a button). Nevertheless, I was assured by lawyers and management that the new version still fit the patent, and nevertheless they would go after someone else and likely win over a product that meets only one or more of the claims.

Personally, I don't expect the patent to be granted - and I would love for it not to be as I don't find software to be patentable.

I agree! Now slashdot is...

[Anonymous Coward]

... breaking the law.

Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins.

Shiat, my bad.

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[Mostly a lurker]

Although it is technically true that "he can be sued", it is also true that anyone can be sued at any time for anything. The point is, the case would be dismissed.

As others have pointed out, infringing a single claim of the patent may be enough for you to lose the case. More important, the costs of litigation are such that most cannot afford to defend the case anyway. By the time you "won", you would have needed to spend millions of dollars (likely unrecoverable).

Patents are like nuclear weapons. Major corporations need them to use as a counter threat to others. Small organizations cannot afford the cost of developing and maintaining a patent arsenal.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The only trouble is...

[mrchaotica]

I don't feel fine!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's deliberate!

[Derling Whirvish]

The patent system is definitely broken. It is bogging down innovation with lawsuits and silly claims.

This didn't happen accidently. It's a deliberate strategy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was in the Reagan administration that the then-current administration decided that the USPTO would not decide on every patent's validity anymore -- that they would essentially grant everything submitted and "let the courts decide" the validity of a patent since the courts had more resources to devote to it than did the "faceless bureaucrats" in the USPTO (and you know how the Reagan administration was opposed to bureaucrats).

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Scientific principles are not patentable. However, "Courts have interpreted the patent laws such that the laws of nature, basic physical phenomena, and completely abstract ideas may not be patented. A "composition of matter" is one of the things which is explicitly declared patentable. Since the canonical form of a gene is a string of nucleotides, which is a specific and unique composition of matter, genes have been declared patentable."

Thus, "whether the patent is properly categorized as a scientific principle or not" is not relevant, since no patent is attempted on a scientific principle. Rather, a chemical composition is patented (DNA is a chemical).

A "product of nature" may not be patented per se.

"New plant strains have also been judged patentable, except for plants found "in an uncultivated state". Since a patented discovery must be somehow useful, only DNA sequences which have some practical medical or laboratory use are patentable. To date, this has included patents on genes, tests for the presence of genes, proteins, and tests for the presence of proteins. A single patent may cover the entire pathway from gene to protein to therapy, or these items may be split among multiple patents. In one particularly egregious display, Chiron Corporation has obtained patents covering essentially the entire hepatitis C virus genome, tests for the presence of viral DNA, the protein products of the viral genome, and vaccines based on those proteins."

"A patent on a gene (or on anything else) gives the holder the exclusive right to say what may and may not be done with that gene, at least in the commercial arena. Whether selling copies of the DNA strand to academic researchers or putting it into a gene therapy vector, whoever holds the patent makes the rules for the 20 years until the patent expires. In a very real sense, the patent holder owns the gene. That same gene is found in every person on this planet (except for those who have a deleterious mutation, and who would very much like that patented normal copy). At least in the United States, it is specifically illegal to demand licensing fees from ordinary people just for having a patented gene in their bodies. However, the ownership over all "unnatural" uses of that gene remains."

Star Trek's Patents (Real!)

[Derling Whirvish]

Paramount Pictures Corp - USS Enterprise - Patent D260789
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D260789.WKU.&OS=PN/D260789&RS=PN/ D260789

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Phaser - Patent D259939
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D259939.WKU.&OS=PN/D259939&RS=PN/ D259939

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Insignia Pin - Patent D261872
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D261872.WKU.&OS=PN/D261872&RS=PN/ D261872

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Uniform - D279135
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D279135.WKU.&OS=PN/D279135&RS=PN/ D279135

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Font - Patent D262037
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D262037.WKU.&OS=PN/D262037&RS=PN/ D262037

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Klingon Battle Crusier - Patent
D263856
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D263856.WKU.&OS=PN/D263856&RS=PN/ D263856

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Miranda Class Starship - Patent
D272839
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D272839.WKU.&OS=PN/D272839&RS=PN/ D272839

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Wrath of Khan parasite - Patent
D275777
http://patft.usp

Re:Star Trek's Patents (Real!)

[cpt kangarooski]

Those are design patents, not utility patents. Basically, they're to protect how those things look.

Re:Star Trek's Patents (Real!)

[Breakfast Pants]

Those are design patents... moron.

Re:Star Trek's Patents (Real!)

[Derling Whirvish]

Those are design patents... moron.

Who's the moron? I never said nor implied they were not design patents. I said they were "Star Trek patents" -- which they are. The "real" in the subject doesn't refer to them being patents on working machines, it refers to them being actually filed in the patent office. They are real design patents as opposed to photoshop fakery patents. Moron. Is English not your first language?

Re:Star Trek's Patents (Real!)

[Teancum]

How in the (*@&#%@#%(*& he** did these patents even get granted. To Paramount Studios no less. This is clearly the domain of copyright, and an overzealous attorney who wanted to extend copyright over things that copyright normally didn't apply.

Furthermore, I think the patents here could be invalidated due to the fact that the "inventor" is not the real person listed here.

One positive side aspect to all of these patent filings: Anthropologists from 1000 years in the future are going to have an incredibly rich source of original material about the 19th, 20th, and 21 Century culture of the USA by going through these patent filings.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's all OK

[deblau]

Don't worry. Whichever way the Supreme Court rules, in twenty years, all the old bullshit patents will have expired. We'll only have to deal with all the new bullshit patents.

So...

[VisceralLogic]

I'd try to figure out what that means for me, but I'm afraid I'd violate a patent in so doing. I guess I'll just stop thinking to be on the safe side...

Property is theft!

[f1055man]

To the barricades brothers and sisters!!! ...hmm, maybe just one more snark.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

circuit court

[slashdotmsiriv]

"A federal circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent."
Funny, the first time I read it as a "federal circus court held that mere...

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[Coryoth]

BTW, the following article describes in a much more cogent way the issues with this particular case than the Crichton editorial.

http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/10/labcor p_v_metab_1.html

Fishing around on that site I found this later article which covers the case and the briefs in far more detail, as well as including links to the actual briefs. It is also important to note that the blog author was one of the drafters of the brief filed by the "Intellectual Property Owner".

Jedidiah.

I get dibs on photon-electron interactions

[cagle_.25]

I hereby declare my patent on all absorptions, emissions, and reflections of photons by electrons. Even *thinking* about my patent requires photon-electron interactions in your brain, so you owe me royalties both for thought *and* use!

All your wavefunctions are belong to me.

Re:I get dibs on photon-electron interactions

[n6kuy]

Eh?

I think RPF gets prior art on this one.

Re:I get dibs on photon-electron interactions

[ccmay]

Even *thinking* about my patent requires photon-electron interactions in your brain, so you owe me royalties both for thought *and* use!

I don't think so! Neuronal signals in the brain are mediated by neurotransmitters, and involve chemical interactions between shell electrons only. The only direct photon-electron interaction in the body is in the retina. So with the right patent, maybe you can collect from me for reading your post, but you can't keep me from thinking about it.

-ccm

Re:I get dibs on photon-electron interactions

[ccmay]

LOL! How do you think those outer-shell electrons interact ;)

I don't follow you. Just because a valence electron can be described by a wave equation doesn't make it a photon. Ionic chemical bonds are an electromagnetic phenomenon.

The only photon-electron interactions I know about are the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and pair production. (and brehmsstrahlung, but that is really an electron-photon interaction, not the other way around.) Unless I am in an X-ray suite, no significant amount of any of those should be taking place in my brain.

-ccm

Judges must owe a fortune

[sjames]

Considering that the judges MUST have held the patented thoughts in mind while the trials went on, they must owe billions of dollars by now. Even if they try to weasel out of it claiming the trial granted them license, they probably haven't purged the memory from their heads yet. I'd suggest they get ECT repeated until they can't remember why they needed ECT unless they want a bill that makes the national debt look small.

Considering that poor cardiovascular health increases potential mortality from the procedure, it's too bad they ruled that being more specific than that carries a financial liability. I guess they wouldn't have lived forever anyway.

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[symbolic]

However, a method for extracting, isolating, and purifying a gene may be patentable. But keep in mind that patents only last for 20 years

Only in theory. I read not too long ago that Big Pharma, Inc. was keen to ways of extending the patents beyond their 20-year span. Lawrence Lessig has some words to say about this: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001554.shtml

How ridiculous, but

[n6kuy]

...SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case?

Now, THAT's scary...

Re:How ridiculous, but

[n6kuy]

Oh, yeah.

I guess I didn't RTFA.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

We've been sold out

[Y-Crate]

With the manner in which patents are granted with regard to medical advances, we are extremely lucky that such..."progress"...in the patent system did not occur any earlier.

Established facts are now restricted property to the point where you often cannot create a test that utilizes your own techniques and methods to check for the presence of a specific gene in a patient's body, because a biotech company has patented that gene and the very knowledge of what that gene does it patentable. I would argue that naturally occurring genetic material is the best example of prior art known to mankind, but the patent office disagrees and permits companies to claim parts of your body as their own, and declare that any knowledge of said material belongs to the company in question. If the biotech company's research establishes that a gene is responsible for a certain condition, using any means to test for that gene is infringement.

Imagine if you will, that years ago someone discovered that iron is hard and patented this exciting concept. We're not talking about a custom alloy or anything of that nature, but just pure iron. Since iron is naturally occurring people all across the globe can get their hands on it with some effort, but using the same broken standard that is currently being applied to patents in the United States today, the patent holder could sue every manufacturer and builder that used iron in any product or structure because they were operating on the belief that iron is a strong material useful for constructing things with, and thus, infringing on their intellectual property.

Where would we be today if such standards were applied in the past, and where will we be if we allow them to remain in force?

Re:We've been sold out

[Billly Gates]

Isn't that illegal under the emancipation proclamation because owning a body is slavery?

You can't own a body but your own. Anti slavery laws from the 19th century should cover that and could be used in court.

It angers me that someone owns me and is using money to extort me of medication. I have no health insurance b3ecause I am a college student and work full time. I lost a month's wage just to see a doctor and get some medication from a condition I have. How much did the pharmacutical industry price gouge me?

Re:We've been sold out

[Reziac]

" I would argue that naturally occurring genetic material is the best example of prior art known to mankind, but the patent office disagrees and permits companies to claim parts of your body as their own, and declare that any knowledge of said material belongs to the company in question."

Occurs to me that the absurdity of the situation might be best illustrated by a patent on something more visible to the layman (who can't be expected to be able to visualize genes); frex, a patent on "a method of utilizing digits attached to the human extremities". Anyone who uses their fingers and toes is instantly in violation of the patent.

This could cripple US lab medicine...

[wherrera]

If the patent holders are upheld, it might mean that ANY newly patented application for ANY lab test, even a pre-existing one, can hold doctors and clinical laboratories, and THEIR PATIENTS, hostage to the new patent.

Example: I find a _new_ correlation with count like hematocrit and some disease like the common cold. I patent the connection. Now, every time the doctor orders a CBC on someone who MIGHT have or had a cold, the patient or the doctor or the lab (probably the lab) suddenly owes me $, or it's patent infringement!

It's as if finding out that someone who proves that Beethoven's music is good to put babies to sleep can now patent that fact (if it were so) and were able to get royalties if a baby ever hears the Ninth Symphony after 8 PM :).

It's a of pre-existing science and if it flies, the people will pay for this warpage of commerce...

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[TemporalBeing]

I think it is safe to assume that the PTO is not going to grant a claim which simply says "list the house."

Have you looked at patents lately? While granted he was likely providing an exaggeration to make a point, he's not that far off base. The pending patent I work with is not far from it either. Sad, but true. So, I would take it that was the claim and not an element of a claim.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So the patent office

[MemoryDragon]

Now has the official numbers 666?

Amicus Curae anyone?

[Vthornheart]

Does anyone know the procedure to file an Amicus Curae (how is that spelled anyways? =) ) brief? Perhaps we, the technologically and scientifically inclined, could provide our insight in the form of briefs directly to the justices of the Supreme court.

That would probably prove most useful, as a lot of these patents (imho) have been won due to technical/scientific ignorance on the part of patent officers and the courts. You throw enough technobabble at someone, and they tend to agree with you simply because they don't understand the fundamental definitions needed to understand the argument. We need to fight that with some insightful statements of the truth of these claims being made, in a language that the justices can understand and thus realize the b.s. that are these patent claims.

I don't blame the justices for being ignorant in these manners... after all, they are versed in the ways of justice, not biology/chemistry/computer science etc... It is up to filings from experts (such as amicus curae briefs) to enlighten them to what the subject is really about so that they can use what they *ARE* experts in (law) to determine what is valid.

So perhaps we can help them out and file some briefs on behalf of our (imho more rational) perspective on these issues?

Re:Amicus Curae anyone?

[Teancum]

If you are going to try to do this with the Supremes, it is better to go to a specialist who actually knows his stuff. aka a real lawyer. Not that intelligent tech people couldn't figure out the formatting and terminology, but it would be better to have a real lawyer who is helping you out both in terms of using words that lawyers are used to using and to avoid common mistakes that non-lawyers might make in a situation like this.

It would be useful, however, for that same lawyer to run it by you as a tech expert to make sure the technical accuracy is there, and it does demonstrate your opinion clearly. And this is an opinion that IMHO is not often brought into courtroom situations, nor really understood by judges.

That patent isn't as dumb as this one, though:

[jpetts]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,022,227.WKU.&OS=PN/4,022,227&RS =PN/4,022,227

I guess the problem is...

[Eric Damron]

...society has wealthy assholes who want to take money away from hard working people without doing any work themselves. Exploiting a broken patent system is only one of the ways they're doing this.

It's Nice to Know...

[eno2001]

...that if I had the money and the time I could take out a patent on my secret formula:

H2O

I could then demand that the entire world pay me ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!! (fucking idiots at the patent office)

Patentable Thought

[PigIronBob]

I Think there for I ... owe?

Thought?

[ScrewMaster]

Personally, I don't think this has anything to do with "thought." Matter of fact, the people promoting this crap aren't thinking at all, they're just drooling over the future profits they'll make by squeezing every last penny out of existing technology and suppressing anything that might threaten to replace it. Kiss our ability to ever again compete in the global economy if "Thought Patents" are given the force of law.

Frankly, I've not been happy with some of the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. If they allow this go forward, so far as I'm concerned it will be evidence of malfeasance in office.

Royalties please

[moochfish]

Would anybody like to hear my two cents on this issue?

Too bad. My thoughts now require the equivalent royalty to access. Thank you.

So, can I sue them...

[John.Thompson]

If their patented gene or physiological relationship has made me ill and they haven't provided a cure?

I'm low on B12

[ScottLindner]

Does that mean they can sue my body?

I certainly agree that anyone should be rewarded for the work. Especially when it is of tangible benefit such as health knowledge.

To me this patent indicates that a lawsuit should follow it. In my eyes, this patent isn't any different than the tobacco companies knowingly harming people by not sharing with them the knowledge that tobacco is dangerous. In this case, this company is deliberately harming everyone's health by not allowing us to know the knowledge they have gained so they can sell us their products the way they want to. It worked with the tobacco companies, I say we stick it to them the same way we did with big tobacco.

Thoughts on this analogy?

Prior Art surely?

[CrankyOldBastard]

I met Steve, who along with his twin brother Robert, were the twins responsible for the connection between b12 and homocystiene urea back in 1980. He took megadoses of b12 and b6, and didnt have the retardation associated with the disease, although he did have the sparse hair and elongated bones. His identical twin was retarded - he didnt take the B vitamin supplements.

He showed me articles about his brother and himself in journals and texts in the UNE library in 1980, and the journals included reports on his "treatment" and how by heeping the levels of (as I recall) pyridoxine hyrocloride up it pushed the reaction to produce less homocysteine and more cysteine. He had regular blood tests to check that he wasnt accumulating homocyctiene in the blood. I recall him saying that his brother would be the last homocycteine urea sufferer to have the retardation, and although his brother died (he couldnt communicate a kidney infection to his carers), he was proud that the two of them were able to hgbe part of finding the cure.

Looks to me that Metabolite didnt do a very good literature search. I wonder how the shareholders would feel to know that research $$$$ were spent reproducing 1960's and 1970's research?

If they can patent this. . .

[kimvette]

I should patent a method by which one can achieve a feeling of euphoria or ecstasy while having one's genitals petted or otherwise stimulated. I shall call this the "orgasm" and unless I see execs of that company getting dumped by their wives due to lack of satisfaction, I know they will be violating my patented thought process and will seek legal action including licensing fees dating back to their date of marriage, or their first-born's date of conception, whichever comes first.

Of course they would say I am comparing apples and oranges, but really, I'm not. Patents are supposed to cover inventions. That's it. Nothing else. I think my proposal above illustrates how freaking ridiculous the US patent system has become.

On a different but related note: How the hell are companies like this being allowed to patent the human genome? Depending on what you believe, there is between 6,000 and 20 million years' worth of prior art, and they've innovated/designed/etc. NOTHING in that regard. The same goes for thoughts, story plots, and so forth. Where NOTHING is being INVENTED there should be NO patent allowed. Period.

If they want to protect the works describing thought processes, they can use a Copyright, not a patent. Ditto for descriptions of the human genome. Of course the facts themselves cannot be copyrighted and someone else can restate them based on their works, but the expression of the documentation itself is copyrightable.

I'm sick of our system being so ****ed up.

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[BroncoInCalifornia]

I suppose Michael Crichton knows about as much about patent law as he does about global warming. He should go back to bending spoons!

as other great civilizations

[penguin-collective]

This is the way great civilizations usually fall: society becomes more and more stratified, small groups control all economic activity, and thought and innovation get incresingly controlled. As a result, both contributions of individuals to the nation and innovation becomes stifled and the nation falls further and further behind internationally.

Of course, there is a possibility that this time (or next time), the dominant nation will manage to export its economic and intellectual malaise globally. In that case, we may be looking forward to thousands of years of stagnation under the kinds of dystopias popular in SciFi.

Oh, that's it!

[moochfish]

That was totally MY idea!!!!!!!!! You shall be hearing from my attorney shortly.

Re:Oh, that's it!

[Fordiman]

Attention. I hold the patent on "Humorous threat of legal action in refernce to patent infringement". I will require royalties post haste, or you shall be hearing from my lawyer.

*tries desperately to hold straight face*

Karma whoring doesn't need to be informed

[FhnuZoag]

Agreed. Let's recognise this essay for what it is - simple karma whoring, to make up for the stupid things he's said in past (especially re: Climate change). It doesn't really take much of an understanding of the issues involved to give the old fashioned populist rant, and so this is exactly what he does.

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[bagsc]

The fact that a patent is in the public domain (with obvious exception of classified patents) means that you have the right to read and understand it. If you could not know what the patent contained, then you could not, with any amount of due diligence, avoid infringing it. Thus, for it to have any legal credibility, it must be able to understand it and know it to violate it. While not knowing is no defense, not being able to know is.

Is their patent attorney one Anne Elk, Miss?

[Megane]

Presenter (Graham Chapman): Good evening.

CAPTION: "THRUST - A QUITE CONTROVERSIAL LOOK AT THE WORLD AROUND US"

Presenter: I have with me tonight Anne Elk. Mrs Anne Elk.

Miss Elk: (John Cleese, as a very prim lady) Miss.

SUPERIMPOSED CAPTION: "ANNE ELK"

Presenter: You have a new theory about the brontosaurus.

Miss Elk: Can I just say here Chris for one moment that I have a new theory about the brontosaurus?

Presenter: Er... exactly. (he gestures but she does not say anything) What is it?

Miss Elk: Where? (looks round)

Presenter: No, no. Your new theory.

Miss Elk: Oh, what is my theory?

Presenter: Yes.

Miss Elk: Oh what is my theory that it is. Well Chris you may well ask me what is my theory.

Presenter: I am asking.

Miss Elk: Good for you. My word yes. Well Chris, what is it that it is - this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is - my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine

Presenter: (beginning to show signs of exasperation) Yes, I know it's yours, what is it?

Miss Elk: Where? Oh, what is my theory? This is it. (clears throat at some length) My theory that belongs to me is as follows. (clears throat at great length) This is how it goes. The next thing I"m going to say is my theory. Ready?

Presenter: Yes!

Miss Elk: My theory by A. Elk. Brackets Miss, brackets. This theory goes as follows and begins now. All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.

Presenter: That's it, is it?

Miss Elk: Stop on, Chris.

Presenter: Well, er, this theory of yours appears to have hit the nail on the head.

Miss Elk: And it's mine.

Presenter: Yes, thank you very much for coming along to the studio. Thank you.

Miss Elk: My pleasure, Chris ....

Presenter: Next week Britain's newist wasp farm ...

Miss Elk: It's been a lot of fun.

Presenter: Yes, thank you very much.

Miss Elk: Saying what my theory is.

Presenter: Yes, thank you.

Miss Elk: And whose it is.

Presenter: Yes, thank you - that's all - thank you... opens next week.

Miss Elk: I have another theory.

Presenter: Yes.

Miss Elk: Called my second theory, or my theory number two.

Presenter: Thank you. Britian's newest wasp farm...

Miss Elk: This second theory which was the one that I had said...

Presenter: (the phone rings; he answers) Yes, no I'm trying...

Miss Elk: Which I could expound without doubt.This second theory which, with the one which I just said, forms the brace of theories which I own and which belong to me, goes like this...

Presenter: (looking at his shoe) 9 and a half, wide fitting... Balleys of Bond Street. What? No, sort of brogue.

Miss Elk: This is what it is. (clears throat)

Presenter: 8 and a half.

Miss Elk: This is it... (lots of noisy throat clearing)

The Presenter rises and leaves the set to go next door to the travel agents set, leaving Miss Elk behind for a moment.

Bounder is still on the phone. His other phone rings; he answers it.

Bounder: Hello, yes ... yes ...

The presenter enters the travel set. The tourist is still droning on from a previous sketch and Bounder is still on the phone.

Tourist: (carrying on all through the scene below) ...and the Spanish Tourist Board promises you that the raging choloera epidemic is mearly a case of mild Spanish tummy, like the last outbreak of Spanish tummy in 1660 which killed half London and descimated Europe, and meanwhile the bloody Guardia are busy arresting 16-year-olds for kissing in the streets and shooting anyone under 19 who doesn't like Franco...

The Presenter approaches Bounder.

Prese

State of confusion.

[TapeCutter]

Just to be "fair and balanced", here is a review of Crichton's state of fear by some qualified and published climatoligists. Also their rebuttal of Crichton's testimony to the senate committee is worth a look.

He may write best-selling sci-fi books but his opinion on climate change is just as fictional as his books and no amount of willfull ignorance by senators and fiction writers will make climate change go away.

Summary judgment is not always available

[tepples]

First, it does not cost millions of dollars to have a case dismissed on summary judgment.

You can't get a summary judgment if the complaining party raises even one issue of material fact.

I think I feel a lawsuit coming on...

[xnixman]

Someone owns the gene for diabetes...

I happen to possess this gene and I am using it in the proper manner.

However, it appears to be doing damage to my other systems.

Now if they have a monopoly on the money to be made from the use and manipulation of this gene then they should similarly have the responsibility to ensure that their gene does no harm, or to, at a minimum, provide financial restitution for harms done.

I look forward to my settlement. :-)

A patent has to be for something that works.

[Russ Nelson]

A patent can only be granted for a functional, functioning object. You can't get a patent for something that you haven't gotten to work yet. Otherwise, you could look at what people are researching, and patent what they're trying to get to work. Then, once they have made it work, you have the patent. Uh-huh. That dog won't hunt. Thus, JUST AS CRICHTON SAYS, the patent shouldn't have been granted.

Re:A patent has to be for something that works.

[Phronesis]

I agree that Crichton is right that this patent shouldn't have been granted. The problem with Crichton's essay is that he doesn't give us a reason why we should worry about patents on nonfunctional technology. You are smarter than Crichton and can probably come up with a dozen examples of how bad patents make the world a worse place, but Crichton doesn't give a single example of how bad patents have actually hurt us. Since he doesn't distinguish between harmless stupidity at the patent office and stupidity that hurts us, he makes a weak case that we should care about the stupidity.

The ease with which I am sure you can come up with lots of examples of how this stupidity does hurt us emphasizes how lazy Crichton was in failing to come up with even one example of why we should care.

Re:THOUGHTCRIME

[networkBoy]

Naah,
Just up the ante:
Anyone can submit a patent, for free.
If your patent is blocked because of prior art, or common sense, or any other reason other than in the name of governmental security, or if your patent is later overturned in a court of law for the same reasons, then you are shot on the spot.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the number of frivolous patents would greatly subside. After all no-one is going to submit a patent for a company that they don't think will stand.
-nB

Great, A Fiction Author...

[Sebastopol]

...involved with serious patent law. WTF? Next we'll have an actor as president of the free world... oh, wait...

I wouldn't consider that capitalism, however

[Rocketship Underpant]

I fully agree with everything you've written, except for the last sentence: "That's the way US capitalism works."

Whether one supports patents or not (I don't), it must be recognized that patents are not capitalist, because they are not a product of the free market*. Patents are a government monopoly that uses force (fines, jail, etc) to keep competitors from producing similar products -- leading to artificially high prices, lower supply, less innovation, and so on. "Fascism" would be a more accurate term for the government's doling of patent protection to corporations, and the protection racket that forcibly prevents people in poorer countries from developing their own versions.

* I do think, though, that manufacturing associations would, in the absence of government interference, might arrange some kind of contractual patent system. Such a system would be without many of the problems outlined by the parent poster.

Something With More Substance

[Jerk City Troll]

Although I am sure Michael Crichton is an expert on just about everything from dinosaurs to time travel, there is considerably more substantial reference material available on this matter. http://law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/l abvmet.html

I have nothing to say about this

[suitepotato]

that hasn't already been patented.

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[ajs]

"Here are a few flaws:"

I beg to differ.

"1) Scientific principles are not patentable."

Ah, but that is a technical point which has long since been circumvented by the reality. For all practical purposes scientific principles have been patentable since at least the 80s (XOR anyone?)

It means that if a real estate agent lists a house for sale, he can be sued because an existing patent for selling houses includes item No. 7, "List the house."

"Obviously Mr. Crichton has not been informed of the "all elements" rule."

This presumes that hypothetical item number 7 is not, itself, a claim.

Nevertheless 20 percent of the genome is now privately owned.

"The genes themselves are not owned. A "product of nature" - a naturally occurring substance discovered in the wild - may not be patented per se.

"However, a method for extracting, isolating, and purifying a gene may be patentable."

Ok, so he's correct. then. Why is this on your list if he's correct? Or were you just not counting the technicality (because I assure you that the courts and drug companies are!

"But keep in mind that patents only last for 20 years - so these patented methods will be publicly available for free in less than 20 years."

20 years... give or take possible renewal and the massive impact that 20 years can have on innovation. Oh, and the fact that duplicate patents are routinely issued.

"And others are still free to find other methods of extraction."

And yet, since vague claims are granted, other methods are likely to infringe.

"Certainly Mr. Crichton can afford an introductory class in patent law."

I'm not sure that's the case, but I am sure that innovation is in one of two modes everywhere that I look now: a slow, cautious crawl, in an attempt to avoid getting sued; or a rapid, but questionable pace of innovating on top of IP that isn't owned by the innovator (e.g. open source software).

Re:THOUGHTCRIME

[Fordiman]

Unfortunately, there is a general disease in the US called the 'dollar'.

See, it's based on faith - specifically, the faith that the US can back up each dollar with something of equal value. What the US has of most value is 'intellectual property'.

Now, this IP is a bit tricky; there is no intrinsic physical property of it that prevents it from being copied. It's an item of real value that can be had for no value. Further, it costs money to create.

This is not lost on trade governance; it's what the four tiers of IP law are based on: Patents, Copyright, Trade Secrets, and Trademarks.

The primary goal of these laws is to provide compensation to authors while allowing for the creation of a large and robust public domain.

Of these, two are highly contested. Patents - granted monopoly rights for business use of an idea - and Copyright - granted monopoly rights for use, copying and distribution of a complete work.

Copyrights are contested primarily because of the length of time rights are granted: it has migrated from about 7 years to approximately 95 years or more, depending on the character of the copyright. Almost anyone except Disney corporation would agree that this is excessive, but no one seems to want to cross major rights holders (the RIAA and MPAA) and fix the problem.

Patents, on the other hand, have a twofold problem: First, you can patent almost anything that's not already in the patent system, even things that have actually been around for years, like hyperlinks. Second, for certain patents, they too are starting to exceed their original time limits (eg: medical patents can be renewed).

On the first point, there is a prior art clause that can be shown to invalidate a patent, however patent law is slowly inching from the current 'first to market' system to a 'first to file' system, in which these patents would be gospel.

Now that you know the issues on patents and copyrights, please write your congressmen to repeal these laws. They, uh, kill babies and maim pregnant women. They're all bad and stuff.

No, seriously, write them and ask them to change the laws to something a little more, you know, sensible.

After going on Jerry Springer...

[rice_burners_suck]

... my significant others and I discovered that our relationship was unique, so we decided to patent it. The patent application currently titles the patent, "Method and apparatus for joining three men, a woman, a dog, two cats, a caterpillar, a giraffe, and an ape, in a polygamous form of holy matrimony." One of my husbands, the gray cat, thinks we should patent his meow, too. The ACLU, being the politically correct entity that it is, will surely support us when the religious fanatics who think marriage is only between a man and a woman (not to mention that they don't understand marriage between humans and apes) attack us viciously.

patents too abstract

[Khashishi]

Part of the problem is that the patent office is giving patents to ideas that are just too abstract. The abstract language used in patents can be far too morphable and encompassing than should be allowable. Patents should be granted for real concrete things, like widgets or drugs. Patents should be granted for creations, not discoveries.

better informed?

[YesIAmAScript]

Application of a single scientific principle will probably not be patentable, as it would probably be obvious. Application of a couple principles would up your odds of having your patent granted (and granted usefully).

Additionally, I think you understate the level of "ownership" of a gene. You not only patent extracting and isolating the genes, but also really any kind of interaction with it. That is, if you make a drug that works by identifying and modifying operating of those genes in any way, you probably violate the original patent. It becomes like a "land grab". That is, the group that sequenced it first has an inherent claim to almost anything done with it, even if they would never have thought it.

And you get all of this just for identifying the area of the genome. You didn't invent anything, you discovered something, and just basically what the terrain looks like at that.

It's not right, in my book.

Crichton was still right

[typical]

We clearly have a couple of problems here.

First, Congress dislikes retroactively destroying intellectual property. This is only common sense -- it yanks the rug out from under investors and businesses.

The USPTO does not have strong limitations placed on it by Congress on exactly what is patentable, and has a huge amount of lobbyist pressure to make as many things as possible patentable.

In the case of genes, we've allowed people to grab ownership of a big chunk of the human genome (as Crichton points out in his essay). This is not a case of the genome not being sequenced -- the Human Genome Project was not locking up genes in IP, but Celera was. This was an attempt to conduct a landgrab on something valuable.

Of course, as you've pointed out, Celera's investors are going to be pretty pissed off (justifiably) if the USPTO let Celera think that it could patent existing genes and then proceeds to wipe away those patents.

The other issue is prescedent. Later people that come along and want to patent things are going to be very irritated if Celera is allowed to patent something, but they are not.

In the case of genes, I have no problem saying that the things are not patentable if they exist in nature. There are other ways to get the value out of them. Sequencing a particular chunk of genes is a rote activity, not a unique process that may not happen again anytime soon (like coming up with a new process, which is what patents are supposed to cover).

I'd like to see strong regulation coming from Congress specifically excluding some areas from patents. Among other areas, I'd like to see:

* Software patents made invalid. Patents do not work well in the software world -- they last far too long, do not account for the high difficulty of reverse engineering software, and "new methods" are constantly used by any software engineer.

* Business method patents made invalid. We've managed to develop many good business models over the years without the "benefit" of patents becoming involved. I don't see the reason to start now.

* Patents on pre-existing data made invalid. If you genetically engineer a new flower, there might be an arguable case for a patent. If you just take an existing flower and dump the data, it should not be patentable. Patents on this are an attempt to do an end-run around copyright law, which *specifically* exclude lists of data as copyrightable (to avoid exactly this sort of nonsense).

Going back to your criticism of Crichton, I'd say that yes, the article was probably not very well-written or convincing. Frankly, I've read better-supported arguments on Slashdot (though perhaps Crichton simply understands his readership better than I do). However, that does *not* mean that his argument is invalid. The fact that he chose an example that was "useless" is certainly not unreasonable, especially since it establishes prescedent (and in the past, this sort of thing has had enormous weight in determining what kind of patents can be granted).

Crichton is addressing a real issue. This patent will be followed by another and another. The longer we wait to do anything about it, the harder it will be, and the more investors will make decisions based on earlier patents.

I'd prefer to draw the line on the side of not restricting new development. That's the safe decision, and the one that's easier to change.

Nobody except Chiron managed either to isolate or sequence Hep-C desipite over ten years of hard work.

I don't even think that this is relevant to the validity of Crichtons argument, as I've said above, but even so, I don't think that your argument is complete. Chiron did not, as far as I can see, develop a new process. Patents protect processes. I might spend forty years doing something that isn't covered by patents, but that still doesn't mean it should be patentable. Besides, were there competitors even attempting to do this? The impression I got was similar to that of Celera -- some people trying to lock up in monopolies existing data by slightly beating someone else to the punch.

Re:Crichton was still right

[Phronesis]

I agree almost completely with what you write here. I agree with Crichton's position, but think that his argument to support it is piss poor. The arguments I made in posts above are NOT attempts to refute Crichton, but to point out examples of arguments that he should have refuted himself instead of trying to be cute about patenting real-estate listings and essay structure.

Parent post completely wrong

[typical]

3)

        Nevertheless 20 percent of the genome is now privately owned.

The genes themselves are not owned. A "product of nature" - a naturally occurring substance discovered in the wild - may not be patented per se.
However, a method for extracting, isolating, and purifying a gene may be patentable. But keep in mind that patents only last for 20 years - so these patented methods will be publicly available for free in less than 20 years. And others are still free to find other methods of extraction.

Completely wrong. I'd like to refer you to one of Celera's patents, 7005286. This is very clearly a patent on not merely a sequence of genes, but a pattern that may match many genes. Here's claim 1:



1. An isolated nucleic acid molecule comprising a nucleotide sequence selected from the group consisting of:

(a) a transcript or cDNA sequence that encodes a polypeptide having an amino acid sequence comprising SEQ ID NO:2;

(b) SEQ ID NO:1;

(c) nueleotides 91-2187 of SEQ ID NO:1; and

(d) a nucleotide sequence that is completely complementary to the nucleotide sequence of (a), (b), or (c).

Interesting, eh?

Certainly Mr. Crichton can afford an introductory class in patent law.
Hopefully he will be better informed the next time he publishes an essay.
Because this type of uninformed nonsense passed off as fact is really annoying.

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think that Mr. Crichton is the one who needs to be questioned.

Re:Parent post completely wrong

[typical]

All right, fair enough. I don't know -- and that's a good point. I remember Celera attempting to patent chunks of the human genome directly, and I simply grabbed a Celera patent related to a sequence of genes. I don't have any evidence that this particular one is indeed naturally occurring, and the patent I referenced is too new to have anything written about it.

Here's a better example -- example -- 5,693,473. This patent is on a naturally-occurring set of mutations that cause breast cancer.

Re:Parent post completely wrong

[typical]

Or 5,346,998, a naturally occurring DNA sequence in Pentadiplandra brazzeana.

Re:Parent post completely wrong

[typical]

His essay is clearly overblown, with his ranting about patents on literary devices.

Yes, I agree. I posted that I do not think that his essay is well-written myself (even though I have enjoyed his professional writing in the past). Frankly, I've seen better arguments against patent abuse on Slashdot than the ones he provides. Most of what raised my hackles was simply how harshly you flamed him. Yes, his article is probably not perfect, but it's mass media. He's doing something that I consider important, which is raising public awareness of the extent of patent coverage. I am sure that others will come along and argue points that he raises.

Still important

[typical]

It seriously made me wonder whether he reads Slashdot. The "I've patented this article" thing is pretty standard here.

However, Crichton is doing something good here. Most people that read the NYT do *not* read Slashdot. There are a lot of people here who are upset because they actually run into the engineering problems caused by the rapidly expanding scope of patents; FreeType not being able to render TrueType fonts with hinting information legally, OSS not being able to compress textures in a fashion compatible with hardware accelerators, valgrind being (temporarily?) removed from Red Hat, software not being able to compress GIFs, and so forth.

The typical NYT reader probably does not run into these issues, and does not realize that they represent a severe roadblock to engineers. This is an important step in raising public consciousness about what is going on. Once people are aware of the issue, more investigation and debate can occur.

Legislators don't do anything until there is public awareness of a problem. This is a necessary step.

By all means: Let them have it...

[charlyw]

But then not only have them reap the benefits but also pay for the damages.
So if somebody dies, incurs some other bodily harm or even feels unwell, because the doctor isn't allowed to make the connection between the desease and it's origin then they should be forced to pay for that.
regards
Karl Günter

Re:By all means: Let them have it...

[MadCow-ard]

Absolut meine Meinung.

Jefferson (a founding father of the US) once said "The best way to eliminate a bad law is to enforce it". I think we make the owners of things such as viruses and genes responsible for their care and function. If I get a cold because of a virus (which is patented), I sue the owner for loss wages at work.

This would end the discussion about ownership of biological items.MFG

If they own it, then they are liable

[MadCow-ard]

FTA
"The entire genome of the hepatitis C virus is owned by a biotech company. Royalty costs now influence the direction of research in basic diseases, and often even the testing for diseases.

In the litigious society of the US, if a firm "Owns" and is "responsible for" the Hetpatitus virus, then I say let them have it. If I accidentially catch Hepatitus C then I will haul them into court: they are liable for the actions of their property. Also if they hinder the ability for society to discover or implement a cure, then I sue them for negligence, and possibly manslughter.

These ideas are to me, quite logical extensions of such absurdity.

SCOT(U)S?

[Fromeo]

When I first read the acronymn, I thought it said that SCOTS was going to hear the case. I was puzzled as to what they had to do with patents, but perhaps they could get a song out of it?

Ad absurdum becomes reality

[stuntpope]

My God! Those Slashdotters who always post "I'm going to patent gravity" to any patent story were really on to something!

How deceptive

[tjeffer]

I've been following this case for quite a while now, and the summary posted above isn't even close to being accurate.

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[the eric conspiracy]

Interesting argument - however the patent claim covers two steps - running a test and then interpreting the result of the test using a known correlation between the test results and the condition described. If you never run the test, or you don't use the results of the test to predict the condition described then you are not infringing. To me the workaround is when you run this test you also run a direct test for the described condition.

Why not?

[metamatic]

As the OAD puts it:

"Capitalism (n) an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

Unless you're a far-out right-wing libertarian, you'll likely accept that the state may legitimately protect and enforce property rights without destroying capitalism. Or to put it another way, it's OK to have a state-run army and police force to stop me stealing your car; that doesn't stop the US being capitalist.

Note also that I specifically added the qualifier to "US capitalism", as I'm aware that the specifics of how things work in the US are not necessarily inherent to all forms of capitalism.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

As thin as a well sharpened knife

[abb3w]

Hopefully the SCOTUS has chosen this as a poster boy for the inanity of the current Patent system... The first thin wedge of peeling back the move to patent any and everything including software.

As a rule, getting the SCOTUS to grant certiorari for your case is usually the bulk of the battle; they more often choose to hear cases when they expect that the lower court's result was mistaken. According to here,

In 2001 a federal jury in Denver ruled against LabCorp, and the company was eventually ordered to pay $7.8 million in damages and attorneys' fees. The appeals court that handles patent cases affirmed the lower court decision in 2004.

So, in the Laboratory Corp. v. Metabolite Laboratories SCOTUS appeal, the "infringer" was ruled against at lower levels, and thus the patent holder is facing an uphill fight.

American Civilization?

[abb3w]

Wait — we're civilized?

Re:THOUGHTCRIME

[peaworth]

I think you are forgeting the situation where companies do not want to ownership.

The logging companies do not want to own the National Forests because then they couldn't get the Forest Service to spend all of the taxpayer funded budget building roads for them and would have to spend their own money replanting trees after they clear cut an area.

The mining companies do not want to own the federal lands where they do their open-pit mining because then they couldn't just walk away from an area after they have polluted the groundwater with toxic minerals and have the government responsible for cleaning it up.

That's really sad

[Silkejr]

Not that I don't agree with you, but damn, how pathetic is that?

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[dzfoo]

>> The genes themselves are not owned. A "product of nature" - a naturally occurring substance discovered in the wild - may not be patented per se.

From the USPTO site:

any person who 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...


Simplified for our purposes to: ...any person who invents or discovers any new ... composition of matter ... may obtain a patent...


So, it appears that the discovery of a previously unknown gene, a chemical compound, and therefore a new composition of matter, is patentable.

I agree with you that this is absurd, and should not be so, but the current statutes of what is patentable are too broad.

      -dZ.

Re:YEaH! Lets do that! Down with the U S of fuckin

[dual_boot_brain]

I guess that means everyone else in the world is an illiterate retard. Somehow I don't think the rest of the world appreciates being associated with your immature, poorly written, uneducated rant. I assume given your inability to reason or spell that you are an American in either high school or public university. Now run along to your Chomsky group-think meeting and let the adults do the talking.

Scotus?

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

So the bloke on the back of the old Irish fiver now has a view on software patents?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Scotus_Eriug ena

US FTC and Aust. Gov't say patents aren't good.

[jbn-o]

No, some patents affect a small number of manufacturers, for instance, hence they're merely industrial regulations—the patents involved in manufacturing cars are an often-cited example. These are quite different from software patents because people in their homes do make and distribute software which is covered by software patents. Different kinds of patents have different effects on society.

However if you want to argue that patents are not a good idea, you'll have some interesting company: the FTC and the Australian Government. According to a presentation by Ciarán O'Riordan at an event held on 2005-11-18 at the European Union offices, "the United States of America told us that software patents are a bad idea". In a 350-page report from the FTC "in 2003, they published their Report on Innovation, which was a 350 page report about the patent system - every aspect of the patent system in the USA.". According to this presentation, every aspect of the American patent system was critiqued and the FTC's "entire conclusion was negative. This wasn't a report just on software patents, this wasn't a response to anything in particular, and they didn't have an axe to grind, but simply for software they found that their was no benefit.". O'Riordan has a /. account, so perhaps he'll address this point in this thread.

Prior to this talk, and this FTC report, RMS gave a talk on the danger of software patents in which he pulls back the focus from patents on algorithms used in software and talks briefly about all patents:

In the 1980's the Australian Government commissioned a study of the patent system. The patent system in general, not software patents. This study concluded that Australia would be better off abolishing the patent system because it did very little good for society and cause a lot of trouble. The only reason they didn't recommend is that international pressure. So one of the things they cited was that patents which was supposed to disclose information so that they would no longer be secret or in fact useless, for that purpose, engineers never looked at patents to try and learn anything because it's too hard to read them. In fact they quoted that an engineer saying "I can't recognize my own inventions in patents".

Does this mean....

[g00p]

...that those people who speak before they bother to think don't get screwed over by someone who already thought of what they said? ;)

Ok now im confusing MYself!

ORWELL ALERT! /me hides!

Re:What's good for Big Business...

[ConceptJunkie]

Well, the Republicans aren't being Republicans, I guess someone has to.

Actually, the Democrat Party is being run more like a rally for INSERT-YOUR-FAVORITE-HATE-GROUP-HERE. They can't seem to get past bashing the President to actually talk about anything.

I think U.S. politics has hit an all-time low... not that that's hard to do.

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Well, first, if you really want to find the URL, since it is straight cut and paste, you could just google it: www.amsa.org/pdf/genepatents.pdf.

Second, "naturally occurring genes are not patentable", and yet they have been patented. This feels like responding to a flat-earth proponet.

In terms of novelty, the first one to sequence it has "discovered" it, and this seems to be what is used. It is "novel", perhaps, in that no one else knew it?

Furthermore, while you claim the PTO will not grant a patent to human DNA, National Geographic claims:

One-Fifth of Human Genes Have Been Patented, Study Reveals Of the nearly 24000 human genes found in human DNA, more than 4000 have been patented by private firms and universities, a new study finds. ... news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_0510 13_gene_patent.html

"A new study shows that 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities."