Patents On Synthetic Life "Extremely Damaging"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patents On Synthetic Life "Extremely Damaging"

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday May 25, 2010 @12:12AM from the that-gene-right-there-that-one's-mine dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Pioneer and veteran of genomics Professor John Sulston is extremely concerned about the patent applications on the first synthetic life-form. The patents were filed by the Venter Institute following the announcement of the first life-form to have a synthetic genome. Sulston claims the patent is excessively broad and would stifle research and development in the field by creating an effective monopoly on synthetic life and related molecular techniques. Prof. Sulston had previously locked horns ten years ago with Dr. Craig Venter over intellectual property issues surrounding the human genome project. Fortunately, Sulston won the last round and the HGP is freely accessible — Venter had wanted to charge for access, just as he now wishes to make 'synthetic life' proprietary."

171 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Exter ... ? by Skapare · 2010-05-25 00:15 · Score: 1, Funny

Somehow, as I was reading it, that title seemed to have the word "exterminate" in it. But maybe not.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
1. Re:Exter ... ? by Thanshin · 2010-05-25 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  Somehow, as I was reading it, that title seemed to have the word "exterminate" in it. But maybe not.
  You mean "Extereminate" right?
2. Re:Exter ... ? by Alphathon · 2010-05-25 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'm fairly certain it was meant to be exterminate, seeing as extereminate isn't a word. If there was a joke in there somewhere then I missed it I'm afraid.
3. Re:Exter ... ? by Thanshin · 2010-05-25 01:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  There was one, before the typo in the news title was corrected.
Time to go.. by drewhk · 2010-05-25 00:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

.. and patent myself before it is too late!
1. Re:Time to go.. by drewhk · 2010-05-25 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  And at the same time, I may pantent you as well.
2. Re:Time to go.. by Pojut · 2010-05-25 00:32 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  And at the same time, I may pantent you as well.
  Is that when, instead of pulling someone's pants down, you just rip the pockets off? :p
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
3. Re:Time to go.. by drewhk · 2010-05-25 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  For this insult, I patent YOU as well. That will teach you a lesson.
4. Re:Time to go.. by Pojut · 2010-05-25 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  OH NOES!
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
5. Re:Time to go.. by confused+one · 2010-05-25 01:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's too late. There's already large sections of your genome that have been patented by various companies.
6. Re:Time to go.. by drewhk · 2010-05-25 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Then it's time to mutate!
  BRAAAIINS!
7. Re:Time to go.. by Jurily · 2010-05-25 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's too late. There's already large sections of your genome that have been patented by various companies.
  Mom has prior art.
8. Re:Time to go.. by confused+one · 2010-05-25 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  But Mom is going to have to spend millions in litigation costs to prove she has the rights to your (and her) genome.
9. Re:Time to go.. by Creepy · 2010-05-25 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  that would infringe on my patent on you - I'm filing suit in Eastern Texas today.
10. Re:Time to go.. by drewhk · 2010-05-25 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but you missed my most recent post, that I started to mutate -- your patent claims are invalid now.
11. Re:Time to go.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 02:50 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  .. and patent myself before it is too late!
  I'm afraid third party can prove prior art existence.
12. Re:Time to go.. by drewhk · 2010-05-25 03:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, we will form a patent pool. We call it F.A.M.I.L.I.
13. Re:Time to go.. by dwiget001 · 2010-05-25 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't that more correctly be "patent gene pool"?
14. Re:Time to go.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously you don't know my mom.
15. Re:Time to go.. by dcmoebius · 2010-05-25 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Don't bother, I have prior art for you.
  
  ..... I patented your mom last night.
Shew! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 00:18 · Score: 0

It's a good thing Newton didn't patent gravity. Think of the licensing fees we'd all owe his estate!
1. Re:Shew! by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-05-25 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Think of the licensing fees we'd all owe his estate!
  0 dollars?
2. Re:Shew! by __aasqbs9791 · 2010-05-25 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  But that would be a lot of zeros!
I couldn't think of a car analogy by Mattskimo · 2010-05-25 00:19 · Score: 1

So here is a music-industry one. This is a bit like the Beatles attempting to copyright the concept of music made by a band comprised of a lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bass and drums, rather than their songs.
1. Re:I couldn't think of a car analogy by master5o1 · 2010-05-25 00:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's like a company that tries to patent an object that has four wheels, a steering wheel, a wind shield and an engine.
  
  --
  signature is pants
2. Re:I couldn't think of a car analogy by Creepy · 2010-05-25 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  The Beatles would have problems with lots and lots of prior art in that case, where this isn't the case. If you want a music analogy, I'd say this is more like Les Paul patenting all music made with electrically amplified instruments.
3. Re:I couldn't think of a car analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, someone did already manage to patent the wheel - by calling it a 'circular transportion facilitation device.' They also patented the use of a child's swing for recreational purposes. Both patents were filed in an attempt to expose flaws within the patent system (Australian, not American), and both were granted.
4. Re:I couldn't think of a car analogy by Solandri · 2010-05-25 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's like a company that tries to patent an object that has four wheels, a steering wheel, a wind shield and an engine.
  Been done before. Fortunately the saving grace in that case was that the patent was on a specific type of engine, and thus ruled inapplicable to most of the cars being made at the time. On a more general note, this is why it's important that patents be for a specific implementation of an idea. If someone can tweak your idea to make it better, they have to be able to do so without running afoul of your patent. That and patent expiration are the only ways for the system to promote progress.
5. Re:I couldn't think of a car analogy by shipbrick · 2010-05-25 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Or if you're in Australia, just patent the wheel itself
This ain't a patent troll by BasilBrush · 2010-05-25 00:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Venter Institute have been working on this for 15 years. Allowing them to get a temporary monopoly to use or licence elements of the fruit of their R&D so they can get a return on their investment is exactly what the patent system was intended for.
1. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Pojut · 2010-05-25 00:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sometimes the depth of human greed astonishes me. This is something which, if openly available to the right people and if they were allowed to work on/improve on it as they saw fit, could literally change almost everything.
  Keeping it locked behind a patent is greed at its worst (or finest, depending on which side you are on.) I'm all for getting paid for your ideas, but some things (like, oh I don't know, synthetic life) should belong to the entire human race, not Joe McBob who can only see lawsuits and dollar signs.
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
2. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 00:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except patents were designed to protect specific objects, tools, and machines with specific functions--like the iPhone, Droid, cotton gin, etc. not fundamental biochemical interactions. If they're building a specific, non-cognizant organism for a specific purpose, ok; if they're going after the whole concept of synthetic life, no.
3. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 00:33 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  I'm all for getting paid for your ideas, but some things (like, oh I don't know, synthetic life) should belong to the entire human race, not Joe McBob who can only see lawsuits and dollar signs.
  Are you saying that synthetic life as a whole should belong to everyone, or that all synthetic life should belong to everyone? I agree that making a patent too broad is a bad thing, but I don't see how all synthetic life should be patent free any more than saying electronics belong to everyone and should be patent free. Patents good, overreaching patents bad.
4. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 00:34 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Unless they made their own novel polymerases, they're just re-using existing proteins and known coding sequences. All the world is prior art. This is a software patent using a known/published language and should be disallowed.
5. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Pojut · 2010-05-25 00:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sorry, I should have been more clear...I meant that the guy should be keeping his patent scope limited to exactly what he did, as opposed to making it so broad as to cover synthetic life in general.
  My bad -_-;;
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
6. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Kilrah_il · 2010-05-25 00:50 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  10 Yep, I think we can all safely say that The Genome is the mother of all Prior Art!
  20
  30 P.S.
  40 No, I didn't read the patent application, so I don't really know how broad their application is and if the summery doesn't stretch the truth a bit in Prof. Sulston's direction. Assuming the summery is correct - Go To 10
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
7. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  so what if I've been working on it for 12 years and I'm nearly there? Do I have to stop? I'm all for people stopping other people from stealing stuff, but having the monopoly because they got there first makes me angry and sad
8. Re:This ain't a patent troll by A+beautiful+mind · 2010-05-25 01:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I propose a viewpoint. As opposed to keeping discussion specific to individual patents or details of a certain case, we should talk about nuking the whole patent system entirely. It is a net loss. It is an archaic system based on naíve economic ideas. It is time to euthanize it.
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
9. Re:This ain't a patent troll by arth1 · 2010-05-25 01:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Venter Institute have been working on this for 15 years. Allowing them to get a temporary monopoly to use or licence elements of the fruit of their R&D so they can get a return on their investment is exactly what the patent system was intended for.
  No, the intent of the system is clearly written in the United States Constitution, and was to advance the arts and sciences. I.e. a consideration for the [b]people[/b], not the inventor.
  The time limitations on patents and copyrights were deliberately kept short in order to force the inventor or artist to create new work instead of living on the profits reaped from old works.
10. Re:This ain't a patent troll by gandhi_2 · 2010-05-25 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  if there was no chance for a profit, it is unlikely that Venter would have spend the last 15 years and shitloads of money on the project.
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
11. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Pojut · 2010-05-25 01:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That's the thing though...if people applied for patents that were limited in scope and describe only their invention, the system would be working exactly as it was intended to. Unfortunately, greed (on applicant's part) and complacency (on the USPTO's part) prevent this.
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
12. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  is exactly what the patent system was intended for.
  Patenting a process that has been in extremely common use for millions of years before you were born is NOT what the patent system was intended for.
13. Re:This ain't a patent troll by arth1 · 2010-05-25 01:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  if there was no chance for a profit, it is unlikely that Venter would have spend the last 15 years and shitloads of money on the project.
  Correct.
  Which would have given others with less money more of a chance to work on this, without feeling it would be fruitless to compete against the big pockets and risk being sued into oblivion.
14. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  There are some areas of new technology and knowledge that are that important to mankind and imho they should never be in the hands of one corporation. I think fundamental research should be funded by the public and mankind as a whole should benefit from it. But well, I don't think in the long run things will change anyway.
  I give it a few decades, 100 years at max, and the society and capitalism that we know will be gone and the patent system will die well before that. We're approaching singularity, computing power keeps increasing and probably explode due to nanotechnology, arificial intelligence gets better, more and more tasks that require some form of creativity and intelligence will be taken over by ai's and so self-improving ai's are coming closer due to that. Once they are powerful enough to develop and improve stuff without much human intervention, the whole thing will gain so much pace and invade so many fields that will change the world completely. Imho it's a no-brainer. Wish I'd live long enough to see that change. Curiousity.
15. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  Are you saying that the MILLIONS of dollars that where invested in this project should just be taken as a loss to the company? Why would ANYONE in the private sector invest in any biological or any research if it can be taken away from them on a whim?
16. Re:This ain't a patent troll by asukasoryu · 2010-05-25 01:46 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  It is an archaic system based on naíve economic ideas. It is time to fix it.
  Counterpoint: Average Joe invents something. Corporation X sees invention and masses produces it for less than Average Joe can. Corporation makes millions. Average Joe sees no profits from his invention. Haven't you seen Flash of Genius about the invention of windshield wipers? The system definitely has flaws, but doing without is not a good idea.
  
  --
  There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
17. Re:This ain't a patent troll by A+beautiful+mind · 2010-05-25 02:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Having a good idea is usually common, actually carrying it to fruition is a lot harder. I think that your viewpoint that we need patents to protect solitary inventors from a hypothetical scenario of a greedy corporation duplicating someone's idea well enough, is flawed. Sure, it's possible that it has happened or would happen to people, but we should be optimizing for the common case. Polihistors are a thing of the past, solitary invention is exceedingly rare. Inventions are evolutionary in the sense that it's a long line of small steps of improvements.
  
  Your scenario of a big evil company swooping down and taking the lone hero's invention is more psychological than based on real concern. A big soul sucking company would probably hire the guy who invented stuff with a generous enough salary. He is the expert on the thing after all, since he managed to innovate in the field. The guy wouldn't get millions of dollars, but he would make a decent living, a good enough outcome for most people. Noone needs millions of dollars for a comfortable living.
  
  The point is, even solitary inventors profit from innovation without having the protection of an artificial monopoly on abstract things that the patent system is. The vastly more common case is unfortunately the damage resulting from any patent system: patent trolls are not the problem I'm talking about, it's just a sympthom. The problem is slowing down the exchange of ideas and the feedback loop of step by step invention. A patent stops that loop. More than 99% of all patents are for small improvements on the already established knowledge base. You'd be hard pressed to find examples of innovation that wouldn't have been invented until the expiration of the patent describing something and are still useful after the expiry of the patent (maybe except cases where a patent retarded innovation so badly that most progress stopped in a field due to legal concerns).
  
  We need to get the legal system out of the free proliferation of ideas. It's not only software patents or patents on living organisms that are the problem, it's the fundamental misunderstanding of how innovation occurs.
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
18. Re:This ain't a patent troll by A+beautiful+mind · 2010-05-25 02:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is like saying that without greed, communism would work :)
  
  In other words, the patent scheme is broken at it's core.
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
19. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Creepy · 2010-05-25 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  heh - objects, tools, machines, and LINES OF CODE - don't forget that one, as it seems to be f*cking with my coding every day. 6 lines of obvious software shader code covered by a patent... grr
20. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Pojut · 2010-05-25 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, the patent scheme is broken at it's core.
  It's not the patent system that is broken. It's the people who use it that are broken. You can't fault the USPTO when people submit insanely broad patents that have nearly nothing to do with their actual invention. (You can, of course, blame the USPTO when they actually GRANT those patents, but that's a different conversation)
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
21. Re:This ain't a patent troll by NewWorldDan · 2010-05-25 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Quite the contrary, there are some areas that desparately need the patent system to continue and flourish. The medical industry in general, and the pharmaceutical industry specifically are a good example. R&D is extremely expensive and depends on the windfall of blockbuster drugs to sustain it. Drugs and medical devices are extrodinarily expensive to develop, but fairly easy to replicate. 20 years isn't that big of a price to pay.
  Software and engineering in general are bad areas for patents. Rarely is anything revolutionary generated, and nearly every software patent should be obvious to one skilled in the art. Furthermore, it is a case of many people simultaneously and independantly solving the same problems, further proof that these things should fail the obiousness test. The issue then, as I see it, is simply protecting the fruits of one's labors and that is easily handled by copyright.
  My biggest complaint is that the patent system seems to not merely protect the how, but also the what. My second biggest complaint is that patents are unreadable gobbledygook.
22. Re:This ain't a patent troll by TheLuggage2008 · 2010-05-25 03:04 · Score: 0
  
  Your scenario of a big evil company swooping down and taking the lone hero's invention is more psychological than based on real concern. A big soul sucking company would probably hire the guy who invented stuff with a generous enough salary. He is the expert on the thing after all, since he managed to innovate in the field. The guy wouldn't get millions of dollars, but he would make a decent living, a good enough outcome for most people. Noone needs millions of dollars for a comfortable living.
  So wrong...
  And as far as no one needing millions of dollars for a comfortable living, if a someone invents something worthwhile, like the above saw guard, they deserve to make millions from it a whole lot more than some faceless corporation that steals the guy's invention deserves to. With worthwhile inventions millions will be made; companies don't have some exclusive right to be the only entities making fortunes.
23. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Rob+Kaper · 2010-05-25 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  some things (like, oh I don't know, synthetic life) should belong to the entire human race
  What's the incentive to invest private funds and time into science if you cannot profit from the results just because the entire human race benefits from them?
24. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  if there was no chance for a profit, it is unlikely that Venter would have spend the last 15 years and shitloads of money on the project.
  [Citation needed]
25. Re:This ain't a patent troll by rattaroaz · 2010-05-25 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the patent system that is broken. It's the people who use it that are broken.
  Isn't that the basis of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument? If a system exists where people are going to break it, and requires that people will play nice to each other, then I think the system truly IS broken. Because you just can't expect people to naturally play nice, and not game the system.
  
  With regard to your earlier post, eliminating patents would screw over the honest patent appliers. Status quo screws over everyone.
26. Re:This ain't a patent troll by lymond01 · 2010-05-25 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Someone mentioned that one of the original ideas behind the patent was not to "protect the little guy" but to allow trade secrets to be revealed without potential loss to the company who has them. Similar concept, of course, just on a grander scale. Trade secrets could stifle innovation -- at least if the idea is out there, people can license it and invent off of it.
  I mean, look at the formula for Coca Cola. How many great new inventions could have been created had the details of that syrupy goodness been unleashed (sorry..licensed) upon the world?
27. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2010-05-25 03:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Haven't you seen Flash of Genius about the invention of windshield wipers?
  Yes. You should not get $20 million dollars for being the first person to think "Gee, I wish my windshield wipers had more speeds."
28. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  there is one simple test that the patent system should add to the patent accepting procedure:
  
  can I follow the procedure described within the patent and obtain a result that fulfill all the patent claims?
29. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Pojut · 2010-05-25 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that the basis of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument? If a system exists where people are going to break it, and requires that people will play nice to each other, then I think the system truly IS broken.
  So you blame a system as being broken when it's the people that do the breaking? That doesn't make any sense.
  That's like saying cars are a flawed method of transportation because most people drive like assholes. That isn't the car's fault, it's the asshole's fault.
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
30. Re:This ain't a patent troll by bzipitidoo · 2010-05-25 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  I have no problem with allowing them a return on their investment.
  But the means is a most unnatural and extremely wasteful and unnecessarily restrictive monopoly, granted and upheld solely by government fiat and force, paid for by our tax dollars. Monopolies are totally unacceptable. Takes a lot of force and expense to make the system function at all. And there is an endless line of scoundrels trying to take advantage of the system's huge uncertainties to argue for having the government cover far more than was ever intended, so that we are treated to such horrifying overreaches as federal border patrol agents being ordered to search for and confiscate prescription drugs. Get government out of our lives!
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
31. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Eowaennor · 2010-05-25 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  What about any other companies/institutions who have been working on something similar also for several years? It looks like Venter's patent application is so broad that it would effectively shut down these other players who have been doing separate work in parallel. The patent system should not be a race. Sure, some guys did something special and they should be rewarded for it, the next guy also does something special but takes a little bit longer and is all of the sudden infringing upon the first guy. They both did hard work, they should both be rewarded.
32. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 03:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Reality: Average Joe invents something. Average Joe has the foresight to patent it. Corporation X sees invention and mass-produces it for less than Average Joe can. Average Joe sues Corporation X, but is told that his estimated legal costs for the case will be $1,500,000 once they have done stalling and playing games. Corporation X offers to buy Joe's patent for a pitance, and Joe relctantly agrees.
33. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. Also, imagine this data being freely available to the public. Anyone can get their hands on it and create devastating things all because we wanted this information to be 'open' and free.
  Sometimes, good things have to have limited access.
34. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  That's the thing though...if people applied for patents that were limited in scope and describe only their invention, the system would be working exactly as it was intended to.
  What the hell does it matter if it's working as intended? Here, I have a device that exterminates Jews. It works as intended, therefore it is a good idea.
35. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Solandri · 2010-05-25 03:59 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Which would have given others with less money more of a chance to work on this
  The "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" idea has been tried before. It failed pretty miserably. Like it or not, greed is just about the best motivator there is to get people to actually do things.
36. Re:This ain't a patent troll by infinitelink · 2010-05-25 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  This is /. man, you don't blame the tool here, you blame the users who misuse it: programming/design/use-your-brain 101, am I right people? Look at the data on crime in places where the likelihood is that many of the people around you are carrying guns, vs. those where that is not so likely, by the way: just do that some time. That sort of thing tends to be a good motivator not to, even where there are a lot of uncultured idiots who might be tempted to "break the system" (how, by the way, is people using guns "breaking the system" when the system allows for use of guns? It is not, it's the misuse that is breaking the law, but the system isn't broken because of this, as "If a system exists where people are going to break it, and requires that people will play nice to each other, then I think the system truly IS broken" in the context of trying to use the "guns don't..." saying in analogy with the patent system; for my purposes I'm going with it to make my own point, however).
  
  Anyway, besides a rather foolish "nuclear option" to a misused system, a better response is accountability for the stewards of it, and the users of it: penalties for what can be reasonably deemed as obvious (to specialists in the field involved) attempts to gain overbroad monopolies through patents, i.e. not complying with the rules and intents of that system, in the name of abusing the government for your own purposes (there's already precedent for this: lawyers can be punished for bringing frivolous lawsuits into the courts by losing their licensing to practice law, which is EXTREMELY serious; also, Sandra Day O'Connor, sitting-in on a Federal Circuit panel, just recently told some hispanic organizations "GFY", in legal terms, "you don't get to use the government to get your way and censure speech you don't like", so the arguments for this sort of thing are still quite prevalent); then you can add accountability to those who are supposed to expertly review these things, and since it's their butts on the line, I'll bet they'll call for accountability for those who give them horrendous conditions to review, and so on (use the mass idiocy inherent in democracy against the highly intelligent, calculating abusers, who abuse others with it): courts have essentially ruled that the government can't normally be held liable for mishandling of their duties, even when mass deaths result from it, with some exceptions where legislation allows for it, so if you want to stop this sort of thing you need to get the right, narrow, carefully crafted, and carefully-enforced, legislation and officials passed and appointed/elected. You don't trash a system just because it's misused: doing that is like trashing a large, functioning, tested, battle-worn, base of code just because it's easier on YOU (i.e. you can be a lazy idiot) to deal with, rather than having to grapple with it, find its values, strengths, weaknesses, application, non-applications, etc. etc., and intelligently, deftly, precisely responding.
  
  I'm appalled at the stupidity and daft ignorance or blindness to consequences to political and legal courses of action that people often take or advocate in their rage and disaffection, when it would affect them so terribly. The world is HORRENDOUSLY complex, and the forces at play tend to counteract and mitigate even terrible systems: ours is in theory actually not too shabby, it's just getting principled and dutiful, intelligent men into position to practice the dang thing that's the key. If you want to do that, however, you need to work towards undermining the overreaching and expanding principles of democracy that our system was originally designed to greatly hinder and prohibit in the first place (1), and make calculating, intelligent, and considerate/moral application/administration necessary for the well-being of the officials such that any actions that are taken in their own or their constituents' short-term interests are instead largely damaging or even perilous to them instead (2): without these
  
  --
  Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
37. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Locklin · 2010-05-25 04:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Of course, the thousands of people who spent the prior 50 years developing the *methodologies* that he used, will be locked out of synthetic life until their children are middle aged. Despite romantic ideas, invention is not a solitary operation. He may have been the first to the finish line using "shitloads of money," but patents will do nothing but slow down progress. The world will start working with synthetic life in a quarter century, whereas without Venter and patents, the we would have synthetic life in <5 (at the rate of progress in molecular biology).
  
  --
  "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
38. Re:This ain't a patent troll by infinitelink · 2010-05-25 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's both concepts. Also, however, much of the actual knowledge that's really needed is still kept as trade secrets: concepts, for instance, may become public knowledge when patented, but the actual processes to produce the real material product, necessary for any utilization of that knowledge for most high-technology inventions, is often kept under wraps, whether in the private sector, or the government, or collaborations between the two: the explosive "glue" that holds nuclear warheads to U.S. rockets, for instance, was so secret (not to mention dangerous to make) that the knowledge of how to produce it was segmented between many individuals and classified, and now that they've decided to overhaul the nuclear arsenal (or rather, do maintenance upon it) they've realized that not only are some of those individuals dead, but others can't be found, and meanwhile both the composition of the stuff (which can be determined through chemical testing, but is highly dangerous because of its volatility) and the method of its production (which cannot be) is currently lost: likely we'll have to concoct a substitute or invent a replacement. : ( Heck, the jet that the Nazis were producing had a carbon-based substance as a coating which actually absorbed radar: to this day we can chemically analyze the substance, but don't know how to produce it. (Thankfully it's not crucial to know or do, as we have much better substances for such purposes than that earlier technology.)
  
  --
  Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
39. Re:This ain't a patent troll by rattaroaz · 2010-05-25 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  So you blame a system as being broken when it's the people that do the breaking?
  Not quite, although I can see where you got that from. What I am saying is that a system open to blatant corruption is a broken system. We can obviously differ on definitions of "blatant corruption." My opinion, the patent system is open to "blatant corruption" to the extreme. Ergo, the patent system is broken.
  
  Excellent, car analogies. I am not arguing the theory of patents with you, only the implementation. If there were no rules on roads regarding direction of flow, stop signs/lights, speed, etc, people can still drive carefully and avoid accidents. But that is just not a reasonable expectation. Therefore, we need to make rules and enforce them. Otherwise, the system would be broken: open to blatant corruption . . . "because most people drive like assholes." People still break the laws and drive like assholes, but the system doesn't seem broken in this case. At least, not according to my view of "blatant corruption." Boy, I sure like those quotes, don't I?
40. Re:This ain't a patent troll by infinitelink · 2010-05-25 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Interest, maybe? Mathematical researchers can derive NO patent-protected benefit from their work at all, because fundamentally the concepts they produce are too abstract and, as ideas go, important to be permitted to receive patent protections. I don't, however, see a lack of funding to such theoretical departments, which are more than well compensated in prestige and grants to make those fields attractive to those with a penchant for it. But you see, this is a non-issue as it is: this sort of thing isn't legally eligible for legitimate patent protection in the first place.
  
  Over and over and over biological patents are having to be struck-down because the processes involved with manipulating biological matter are too fundamental to life and often only-course methods to do it; legally speaking NO patents are supposed to be granted (as per the law itself) on any biological fact AT ALL, yet the USPTO has kept on granting them, only leading to one costly legal battle after another, which inevitably ends-up invalidating the patent in the end, costing us all time, money, etc. etc. in the first place.
  
  And am I going to be the only guy on here (though I haven't read every comment yet, so forgive me if I've overlooked something) that is going to point-out that this isn't "artificial life" at all, in the sense that the "synthetic life" combination of terms is being thrown-around to signify? It's not even the first example of "synthetic life", as those terms mean in every proper and derivative sense, which applies to everything from all the clones we make, to every example of recombinant or genetically-engineered lifeform that we use daily in biological research; it's not even the first time a genome from one organism has been inserted into another, as the reports have been proclaiming: such stupidity, ignorance, and sensationalism, ugghh.
  
  All this is, is recombinating of existing matter into an existing cell, in something of a slightly more complex fashion (if that) than some earlier examples. I wouldn't say this is something that should come near to qualifying as unique or meritorious of patent protection, and if it was granted it would shut-down a lot of previous and continuing biological research. The libertarian (center-left, not rightist) "but OMG, if we don't let them patent it, who's gonna research!!! OMG, the end of the frikkin' world will be upon us" is the same sort of diversion and fearmongering that we're usually able to spot (around here) quickly, but this is a electric-technology oriented site and community more than a biologically oriented one, so I guess I can understand why it's not as easily being seen through. Anyway, I tried to be a little more expansive in my comment because of that difference of orientation, a much more succinct way of saying some of what I did (speaking of reading more of the comments) here, http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1663502&cid=32334514
  
  --
  Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
41. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Zerth · 2010-05-25 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ack, no! I would rather have them patent this instead of copyright it. Patents expire in a decade or two, copyrights last a day less than forever.
42. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Omestes · 2010-05-25 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  The alternative is also failing pretty miserably too, just less dramatically and in much slower motion. Perhaps there is a solution that doesn't require existing on either extreme. Somewhere between Marx and Rand (both ideological nutjobs, who had a couple of salvageable points) there might be a proper solution. It will never happen because the rich and powerful like the status quo in either scenario, and normal people never matter.
  I personally think unmitigated, and consequence free greed, like that which rules America today, which we somehow conflated with virtue, is just as bad as Communism.
  This patent argument highlights this. Having a patent on artificial life would be fine and dandy if it was VERY specific, and only barred advancement on one axis. This patent sounds like it bars artificial life, by whatever method, which hurts the public well-being. Ideally, one could only patent an implication of artificial life, and not the class as a whole. This is like having a patent on the idea of manufacturing, where the real domain for patents should be in the manufactured widgets.
  Somehow we forgot that all limited monopolies (copyright, patents) are granted only for the good of the people, and not for the profit of one individual. They compromise between these two areas, offering a carrot on a stick to clever inventors to force them to use their greed to benefit the rest of us.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
43. Re:This ain't a patent troll by rhaacke · 2010-05-25 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Patents are very important. People do not work for free. The more important the discovery the more the discoverer should be paid for it. As has been noted by others here, the inventor spent 15 years of his life and millions of dollars developing this invention. Now you want him to just give all that effort and expense away. You are right. The depths of human greed are astonishing. It is even more astonishing when people don't even recognize the depths of their own greed while denigrating it in others. Who is the one who wants something for nothing here? You!
44. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  True. Patent protections nowadays only serve to push R&D overseas where such patent protections are not in place. Other than for the patent holder, it's a net economic loss for the patent issuing country.
45. Re:This ain't a patent troll by BasilBrush · 2010-05-25 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  You make it sound as if it was one sided. For the people, not the inventor. That of course can;t be true because the onus is on the inventor to apply for the patent. He would not do so if he didn't benefit from the system.
  The truth is it was always intended to be a balance - for inventors to reveal their secrets in exchange for that limited time monopoly. Both people and inventor were intended to benefit from the arrangement.
46. Re:This ain't a patent troll by shaitand · 2010-05-25 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Except that life is not an invention and life and genes should not fall within the scope of patent.
47. Re:This ain't a patent troll by BasilBrush · 2010-05-25 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that without the possibility of patenting it, then Venter wouldn't have done the research in the first place, and nothing would be changed. The backers of Venter must have spend millions of dollars on this research. They wouldn't do that without a reasonable chance of a return.
  Of course if it had instead been the work of public sector money, such as by a government funded university, then I'd agree it should be given openly to all.
48. Re:This ain't a patent troll by dissy · 2010-05-25 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Allowing them to get a temporary monopoly to use or licence elements of the fruit of their R&D
  If they were actually patenting something they invented or worked on for a year (or ideally 15 years) then there wouldn't be as much of an issue.
  It's the fact they patented not a method but a thing, and a thing they didn't create.
49. Re:This ain't a patent troll by The+Hatchet · 2010-05-25 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  That would be true if they patented the specific genome they created. But to patent the idea of making synthetic life? That is like patenting the process of coming up with ideas and asking for patents. Simply as trollerific as it gets.
  
  --
  Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
50. Re:This ain't a patent troll by dissy · 2010-05-25 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  If they're building a specific, non-cognizant organism for a specific purpose, ok; if they're going after the whole concept of synthetic life, no.
  Neither of those things qualifies for a patent however.
  The latter less so (0%) than the former (Above 0%when talking about the building process and tools to do so, but still 0% as-is)
  There are millions of years of prior art over exactly "synthetic life"
  My grandparents did it to make my parents, and my parents did it to made me. That's 6 people showing prior art, two thirds of which were born and done so long before the people filing the patent.
  * We must assume that humans, animals, plants, and whatever they created in the lab are all "life"
  * "Synthetic" is usually used in the sense of synthesis, the combination of two or more parts, whether by design or by natural processes.
  If Venter cared in any way about having a legit patent to use against getting ripped off, they would have put more effort into making the patent apply to what they have been working on.
  Instead, they try to cover all life, then expect us to care that they basically just didn't patent their work and now it will get ripped off.
51. Re:This ain't a patent troll by The+Hatchet · 2010-05-25 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Or like patenting the process of writing things on a computer that when executed do things. Then nobody can write software without paying fees. That is what they are doing, except with living things. If that is not trolling, what is?
  
  --
  Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
52. Re:This ain't a patent troll by asukasoryu · 2010-05-25 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  If many people want something which is not yet available and you are the first person to come up with a practical solution, should you not benefit from inventing said solution? Do inventors deserve nothing? Windshield wipers may seem trivial, and provide only a simple relatable example for discussion, but Kinnear created a solution to a problem which became profitable for automobile manufacturers. He deserved more than the $20 million he got.
  
  --
  There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
53. Re:This ain't a patent troll by h4rr4r · 2010-05-25 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  This is what would happen today, Average Joe cannot afford a patent nor can he afford to protect himself against suits from patent trolls.
54. Re:This ain't a patent troll by asukasoryu · 2010-05-25 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  I interpret your post to mean screw the little guy because progress is more important. Let the corporation reap the benefits as long as the little guy gets a "decent living" (regardless of what his efforts/ideas are actually worth).
  
  I would love to live in your idyllic world with free ideas, but the truth is that everything is profit driven and corporations are unscrupulous when it comes to taking advantage of people when the opportunity arises.
  
  --
  There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
55. Re:This ain't a patent troll by A+beautiful+mind · 2010-05-25 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Quite the contrary, there are some areas that desparately need the patent system to continue and flourish. The medical industry in general, and the pharmaceutical industry specifically are a good example. R&D is extremely expensive and depends on the windfall of blockbuster drugs to sustain it. Drugs and medical devices are extrodinarily expensive to develop, but fairly easy to replicate. 20 years isn't that big of a price to pay.
  You're misinformed. More than half of the medical research money comes from the government even in the US and of the remaining part, it constitutes less than 20% of the budgets of the large drug companies, dwarfed by the marketing budget. R&D might be expensive, but pharma companies these days are doing the wrong kind of research _because_ of the patent system. The "blockbuster" drugs in recent years have only been at best marginally better, at worst marketed better with worse sideeffects than the generic drugs, the only difference was the patent that allowed the drug companies to milk the consumer dry. Abolishing the patent regime would _benefit_ the medical industry, because it would force them to innovate or consolidate prices and stop chasing patent protection and instead look for truly innovative medical solutions. 20 years is a huge price to pay, because it's not only one device, but every small improvement on the device after that that gets patented. What would normally happen in 2-3 years with competition might take 40 in the patent system.
  
  Software and engineering in general are bad areas for patents. Rarely is anything revolutionary generated, and nearly every software patent should be obvious to one skilled in the art. Furthermore, it is a case of many people simultaneously and independantly solving the same problems, further proof that these things should fail the obiousness test. The issue then, as I see it, is simply protecting the fruits of one's labors and that is easily handled by copyright.
  I don't think you could name a single area where that wasn't a trend regarding patents.
  
  My biggest complaint is that the patent system seems to not merely protect the how, but also the what
  That's what you get for trying to monopolize the abstract.
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
56. Re:This ain't a patent troll by jonnat · 2010-05-25 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Venter Institute have been working on this for 15 years. Allowing them to get a temporary monopoly to use or licence elements of the fruit of their R&D so they can get a return on their investment is exactly what the patent system was intended for.
  "Their investment" originated mostly from taxpayers, in the form of DoE and NIH grants.
57. Re:This ain't a patent troll by A+beautiful+mind · 2010-05-25 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Then I apologise for not being clear enough. What I ment to say isn't "screw the little guy", but rather that the little guy already has lots of options to turn a profit from inventing something, without the artificial monopoly of a patent system. His ideas are worth a lot without a protection of the patent system and let me just add that I take issue with you saying "actually worth", because currently the inventor receives massive subsidies from the taxpayer in the form of the patent system. Those subsidies take away a lot more from the public than they give to the inventor.
  
  I agree with the assessment that a lot of corporations are mindless soul sucking incarnations of evil, however exactly that makes the patent system so bad. It's 45% patent warfare, 45% milking the public with patents for bullshit improvements thus retarding progress and at best 5% use that could be called legitimate, although I pretty much think that even that 5% is detrimental on the medium to long term.
  
  If the patent system would be a drug, no medical regulatory agency would approve it due to it's very severe sideeffects and unproven beneficial effects.
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
58. Re:This ain't a patent troll by madpansy · 2010-05-25 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  The world will start working with synthetic life in a quarter century, whereas without Venter and patents, the we would have synthetic life in <5 (at the rate of progress in molecular biology).
  That's not quite correct. The US will start working with synthetic life in a quarter century, while those countries who do not recognize US patents will start much sooner.
59. Re:This ain't a patent troll by Thing+1 · 2010-05-25 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's 45% patent warfare, 45% milking the public with patents for bullshit improvements thus retarding progress and at best 5% use that could be called legitimate [...]
  
  Where'd the other 5% go?
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
60. Re:This ain't a patent troll by fustakrakich · 2010-05-25 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Countercounterpoint: Corporation X has no exclusivity. Joe can go to Corporation Y have it made even cheaper, in addition to being "The Original New and Improved Widget 3001" Could even come with a "genuine advantage" program.
  And a lot of good the system did for Edwin Armstrong...
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Very bad by schn · 2010-05-25 00:24 · Score: 1

I don't want to have to pay to hail my new robot overlords.
1. Re:Very bad by Errol+backfiring · 2010-05-25 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have to. Until you reproduce, off course...
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
2. Re:Very bad by schn · 2010-05-25 00:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's actually a decent point; under this, would a sentient robot have to pay for access to it's own genome, for reproduction or otherwise?
3. Re:Very bad by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 00:50 · Score: 0
  
  That's actually a decent point; under this, would a sentient robot have to pay for access to it's own genome, for reproduction or otherwise?
  For answers to this and many other fascinating questions, you should read the Freefall web comic.
Prior Art by Mattskimo · 2010-05-25 00:26 · Score: 4, Funny

I'd better hurry up and spit in a bag and post it to myself as evidence of prior art.
Maybe in a way they are by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 00:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

If their terms are as broad as we are accustomed to from software patents, then I'd say yes, they are trolls and deserve the crowbar treatment
1. Re:Maybe in a way they are by jgagnon · 2010-05-25 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  What if they own the patent on the crowbar treatment? You'd have to pay them for every beating they receive.
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
2. Re:Maybe in a way they are by IndustrialComplex · 2010-05-26 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  What if they own the patent on the crowbar treatment? You'd have to pay them for every beating they receive.
  I have paid for entertainment in the past. Some things are worth paying for.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
World domination. Finally. by Errol+backfiring · 2010-05-25 00:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

So if you study steel, all steel structures should be yours? And if you study the world...

--
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
1. Re:World domination. Finally. by couchslug · 2010-05-25 01:06 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "So if you study steel, all steel structures should be yours? And if you study the world..."
  I'll study poontang, thank you very much!
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
2. Re:World domination. Finally. by simoncpu+was+here · 2010-05-25 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  So if you study steel, all steel structures should be yours? And if you study the world...
  Yes, if you manage to create steel factories and produce steel products first. If you manage to be the first to sail around the world you have studied...
3. Re:World domination. Finally. by ArbitraryDescriptor · 2010-05-25 02:41 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  So if you study steel, all steel structures should be yours?
  Sure, who cares about steel; steel is weak. What is steel compared to the synthetic flesh that wields it? Now go and contemplate this on my re-sequenced Tree of Woe (patent pending*)
  
  *That is power.
4. Re:World domination. Finally. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  Then I'm studying your mom.
5. Re:World domination. Finally. by BasilBrush · 2010-05-25 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  If you were first to invent steel, then of course you would have earned yourself a limited time monopoly to use or license it. You benefit from that time limited monopoly. The world benefits from you letting them know the secret of this new wonder metal.
  Of course that particular invention was long since made public and isn't now patentable.
6. Re:World domination. Finally. by lennier · 2010-05-25 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, who cares about steel; steel is weak. What is steel compared to the synthetic flesh that wields it?
  
  Well, eg, it is harder to poke pointy metal things into. *Splork*.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
7. Re:World domination. Finally. by lennier · 2010-05-25 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  The world benefits from you letting them know the secret of this new wonder metal.
  Or, more precisely, from not letting them know the secret, since that's what patents boil down to in practice. People theoretically 'know the secret', but they are forbidden from practicing it under pain of having men with suits and guns have stern conversations with them in concrete rooms.
  So patents are actually about deliberately slowing the improvement of the world until they expire, and deliberately using that regulated vacuum of innovation to create commercial profit - in the absence of what the market would normally do, which is to tell everyone, copy the useful innovation, and imemdiately put it to work creating instant value for everyone. Use value, not exchange value - but our market system values exchange value far more than it does use value.
  (How much do stay-at-home parents contribute to the national GDP? How much value do they create in reality?)
  But hopefully the commercial entity which filed the patent in the first place, will then plow some of its profits back into creating new useful arts and techniques sometime in the future. And sometimes they even do! It's an economic miracle!
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
8. Re:World domination. Finally. by lennier · 2010-05-25 11:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The moral of this story: if you create an honest creation to use, rather than to sell - assuming it's a creation which is beneficial to all and not something which helps the wielder while harming others (like say a weapon or a secret process which only gives your business 'competitive advantage' in a zero-sum market) - then you will lose nothing by not patenting or copyrighting it but will in fact gain hugely, as your creation will be distributed widely, make the world more efficient, spark new and better ideas, and you'll benefit personalyl from living in that improved world.
  But much of our social infrastructure views creativity as something you do primarily to sell to others, or get advantage over others. And as long as we think in that way, we'll always be threatened by creativity happening elsewhere, and therefore will seek to control and stamp out creativity in others - and view copying as a form of theft.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
9. Re:World domination. Finally. by BasilBrush · 2010-05-25 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Or, more precisely, from not letting them know the secret, since that's what patents boil down to in practice. People theoretically 'know the secret', but they are forbidden from practicing it under pain of having men with suits and guns have stern conversations with them in concrete rooms.
  A statement of the complete opposite of the truth. Before patents, inventors would seek to profit from their inventions by keeping them secret. For example in the steel hypothetical, the inventor would keep the secret of how to make the new metal to himself. The rest of the world would never know how to do it. Of course how well they could keep secrets depended on what the invention was. A process like steel making would be easier to keep secret than a mechanical device which could be dismantled and examined.
  Patents are primarily a secret divulging device. The patent application lays out the entire secret, and it is available for the rest of the world to see upon request.
10. Re:World domination. Finally. by BasilBrush · 2010-05-25 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  But much of our social infrastructure views creativity as something you do primarily to sell to others, or get advantage over others. And as long as we think in that way, we'll always be threatened by creativity happening elsewhere, and therefore will seek to control and stamp out creativity in others - and view copying as a form of theft.
  Spoken like someone who has never had to provide for himself by earning a living.
Patent on 'things'? by Mr0bvious · 2010-05-25 00:35 · Score: 1

I haven't read the article or patent but that summary sounds pretty close to a patent on 'things'....

Please tell me we're not there.

--
Never happened. True story.
Unfortunately for him by Dunbal · 2010-05-25 00:35 · Score: 1

There is prior art in creating extremely variable genes. It's called sexual reproduction, and it's so simple even bacteria can do it.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1. Re:Unfortunately for him by asukasoryu · 2010-05-25 00:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sexual reproduction has a limited input genome. Nature cannot create anything that does not already exist in the parents, save deviation due to mutation. The idea behind synthetic life is that you can produce any genome and therefore create lifeforms which could not occur naturally. The issue is whether or not you can patent a specific genome so that others cannot use it freely.
  
  --
  There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
2. Re:Unfortunately for him by Kilrah_il · 2010-05-25 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Bacteria do asexual reproduction, or more specifically binary fission. So, no, bacteria can't do it.
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
3. Re:Unfortunately for him by Rogerborg · 2010-05-25 01:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually, bacteria can exchange genetic material. While it's not sexual reproduction, it's still pretty damn hot if you watch it under a microscope.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
4. Re:Unfortunately for him by Alphathon · 2010-05-25 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  I think you'll find that bacteria reproduce asexually.
5. Re:Unfortunately for him by Pojut · 2010-05-25 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Man, I'm tellin' you Bob...the things that chick does with her flagella? Oof, it's enough to make you divide!"
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
6. Re:Unfortunately for him by KreAture · 2010-05-25 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Patent on synthetic life is just a software-patent.
  It should thus only be pertinent to the implemented functions and only on the way those functions are implemented.
  
  Then again, IANAL and if I were I'd recommend I be sent packing for interfering with life, the universe and everything.
  Don't forget to give me a towel though...
7. Re:Unfortunately for him by Kilrah_il · 2010-05-25 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Bacterial conjugation is often incorrectly regarded as the bacterial equivalent of sexual reproduction or mating. Loosely, and misleadingly, it can be considered to be a limited bacterial version of sex, since it involves some genetic exchange.
  While you are correct that bacteria have more advanced mechanisms than just binary fission, it is not considered sexual reproduction. In sexual reproduction you have 2 genomes (with more or less the same genes) from 2 different individuals, thus allowing the propagation of (hopefully) useful mutations and allowing greater diversity in the species.
  In bacterial conjugation, OTOH, one bacteria has a beneficial gene (AKA plasmid) that is copied and transferred to another bacteria that does not have it. This mechanism is used, for example, to pass antibiotic resistance genes from one bacteria to another (see ESBL).
  P.S.
  I was going to say something about "pretty darn hot", but Pojut said it better (+1 Funny from me).
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
8. Re:Unfortunately for him by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  Bacteria can reproduce asexually, but can also do it with a pilus.
  If you click there, you will see that the male bacteria extends an appendage into the female bacteria, and proceeds to inject it with DNA, which in turn gets incorporated into the female bacteria. Even though the mechanics of it are hilariously similar to animal sex, the result isn't a new progeny different from the parents. Instead the result is two bacterial parent cells that have shared their DNA, which can then split asexually into progeny.
9. Re:Unfortunately for him by Alphathon · 2010-05-25 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  So, no sexual reproduction then. In fact a quote form the article:
  
  Despite its name, the sex pilus is not used for sexual reproduction, and cannot be equated with a penis, although such comparisons are often used to ease understanding.
  Transfer of genetic material does not constitute sex. There is no reproduction involved in that process. Any following asexual reproduction is simply preceded by that process which changes the parent cell - the reproduction is in now way effected by the transferal (other than the fact that it increases the cell size, so may speed up the separation). There is no male or female cell, rather a donor and recipient.
10. Re:Unfortunately for him by Dunbal · 2010-05-25 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah just ignore all that stuff about transduction, transformation and conjugation.
  You are told bacteria reproduce asexually in high school. However when you take a university microbiology course you learn that different bacteria can share genetic material, even across species (leading to all the antibiotic resistance we see today). While it might not look like sex to mammals, the exchange and recombination of genetic material through mechanisms other than meiosis IS sexual reproduction, since offspring inherit characteristics from both parents.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
11. Re:Unfortunately for him by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Not necessarily true, many bacterial do carry out a means for a direct cell to cell transfer of DNA using a structure called a pilus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation
12. Re:Unfortunately for him by infinitelink · 2010-05-25 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it ("nature") can dude: it's called "horizontal gene transfer", and it's genetics 101: living, functioning bacteria microbes can swap material and recombinate themselves in sito, while carrying out all the processes of their life cycles. This is why bacteria microbes are essentially taxonomically unclassifiable (at least without having severe doubts of ALL systems of classification, however their organization is conceived, whether based upon various phenotypic phenomena, or even upon genetic comparisons). In fact, it's not limited to microbes, just to the cellular level: retro-viruses can also infect organisms with foreign, functioning, genes when they use reverse transcriptase to integrate their own RNA-derived genomes into their host, that is, whenever a viron or some viruses have themselves become infected with genetic matter from a previous host: sometimes this is very very bad (in any "higher", multicellular organism it's deadly), while in other cases (plants are often able to cope quite well, being much simpler in life, though not processes, or "emergent properties necessary to keep living", terms). Let me repeat this, explicitly, this can take place within current organisms, not just in gametes before fusion, and not just because of mutation. Your own post is a bit mixed-up from a biological perspective: most microbes don't reproduce sexually as it is, and as far as "could not occur naturally", as far as we can tell there is nothing known yet that microbes can't metabolically come to deal with or use, or chemical they can't produce, etc. etc., and when they don't have the genetic complement to handle it, swapping begins (not just "swapping may accidentally occur in the vicinity luckily enough that they might come across some combination that's useful", but really "purposeful swapping which comes to produce a necessary genetic repertoire to deal with or live happily within a given situation"); even more interesting with regards this "mutation" thing: it doesn't happen just accidentally, as there are actually mutation-directing factors/mechanisms/structures within cellular organisms to happenstance-search for new genetic combinations to cope with situations, though emergency ONLY (seriously ONLY in this department, as it will almost always prove fatal to an organism).
  
  And to get even "worse", "complex", whatever, if there's some function that an individual microbe just can't find itself able to do, and it hasn't happened upon the right genomic sequence yet, it can begin chemically communicating with the microbes in its environment to form a highly organized, complex organization or cooperating ecosystem of microbes to accomplish its ends (i.e. living in an environment, exploiting an environment to live). What is always comes down to with these things is that they have to function towards continued living: even if you designed them not to, you'd soon find yourself with colonies and derivatives that decided to trade for genes or repair the ones you've damaged in order to keep living in spite of your intents. That's what they do in a lab: even, in fact, if it means that the very characteristic/s for which they're designated in some way have to be completely reversed (such as E. Coli developing the ability to metabolize citrate).
  
  In fact, because of these sorts of characteristics with microbes, plants, etc., I have something of a philosophical problem with actually calling them "species" or even "life" in the same sense as higher-order animals. These things might better be designated as environmentally observed super-modular/interchangeable/adaptable "machines"/"mechanistic devices"; it's for this sort of thing that earth is homeostatic too, a phenomenon which is still baffling, whether considered by the religious or the scientific community.
  
  When they apply for patents like this, legitimately considered applications might be things like "making organisms to eat non-bio-degradable materials", but guess what? Microbes naturally develop abilities like that without our help: any sort of
  
  --
  Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
13. Re:Unfortunately for him by infinitelink · 2010-05-25 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  "Plasmid" != "beneficial gene". Plasmids are one method, used in nature and in labs alike, to transfer genes between bacteriums (-- I know that "bacteria" is proper and scientific, but I'm using "-ums" to emphasize "several individuals"). There are also other methods and devices, besides transfer of the devices called "plasmids", to accomplish gene transfer, by the way: I say that for general interest, and hope it intrigues someone out there. : )
  
  --
  Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
14. Re:Unfortunately for him by rodarson2k · 2010-05-25 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Let's make like bacteria, baby, and engage in horizontal (gene/jean) transfer.
15. Re:Unfortunately for him by Kilrah_il · 2010-05-25 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected. I should have said: "...beneficial gene (usually carried on a plasmids)..."
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
16. Re:Unfortunately for him by Alphathon · 2010-05-25 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't ignoring it, I just wasn't considering it sexual reproduction. Sure it has the same end result but as far as I am aware it is two independent processes (horizontal transfer and asexual reproduction). If together they are considered sexual reproduction then fine.
  I did Biology up to "Higher" level. I have no idea what your local equivalent would be (I don't even know where you are) but it ends 1 year before high school does in Scotland (you do it in 5th year, leave in 6th year...although you CAN leave from 4th year onwards). The English equivalent is an AS-level...sort of (it sits between AS and A2 in terms of content). I learned about both bacteria and viruses transferring genetic material from one cell to another (not in detail but I did). Not once was it referred to as sexual reproduction but the the outcome was certainly made obvious.
  As I said, I have not done Biology beyond high school level, but was certainly aware of those processes. If that is accepted among the undergrads and beyond as sexual reproduction then thats fine, but I don't really see how it is a useful label (maybe semi-sexual reproduction or something completely different would be better to distinguish it from the reproduction of plants and animals, since the two are very different).
  Just out of interest, are the two processes (whichever form of horizontal transfer is involved and mitosis) linked in any way? If not then how can it be sexual reproduction? Surely it would simply be that the "new" cell (after the horizontal gene transfer) is reproducing (i.e. creating offspring) asexually?
17. Re:Unfortunately for him by Rogerborg · 2010-05-25 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  Man, you must be a riot at parties.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Don't you understand? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-05-25 00:38 · Score: 5, Funny

Craig Venter's dream is to use the tools of science to create the world's first true patent troll. Not a mere shell corporation; but a living, breathing creature, equal parts mythological tusks and contemporary instinct for ruthless litigation. Natural habitat? The Texas rocket-dockets...
1. Re:Don't you understand? by Pojut · 2010-05-25 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  "Not born...shit into existence."
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
2. Re:Don't you understand? by WillDraven · 2010-05-25 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  That was a great movie until comedy central played it into the ground.
  
  --
  This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Patents by Black+Parrot · 2010-05-25 00:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

We should start calling them "Letters of Marque", so people will understand their purpose better.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
1. Re:Patents by Rogerborg · 2010-05-25 01:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I will trade my lunch for mod points.
  What makes this spookily accurate is the focus on global "intellectual property" enforcement regimes, so that "we can protect our interests abroad". Raw nationalist piracy on a scale that makes pillaging the Plate Fleet look like a 10 cent raid on a Take A Penny, Leave a Penny box.
  Good gravy, and wait until the Chinese get in on the act. Instead of ignoring "IP" rights and actually making things - hah, naive fools - imagine a billion Chinese patent trolls filing three patents a day each and getting rich from the sweat of your brow.
  When you start a shooting match, you'd best be sure that you're bringing the biggest guns.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The Race To Produce More Synthetic Life-Forms by barutiwa · 2010-05-25 00:49 · Score: 1

I think the most interesting aspect of being the first to create a synthetic life-form is that you inspire others to continue their Research & Development on this subject using their own innovative techniques/methods to arrive at producing synthetic life. This is inspite of opposition and a patent. It all sounds like something out of a sci-fi comic book. Anyway, I think the possibilities are great. Now, I would not be surprised if someone blast their synthetic life-form on a planet like Mars just to see if their synthetic life-form will survive and replicate itself.
The end is nigh! by asukasoryu · 2010-05-25 00:59 · Score: 1

You have just foreseen our demise. Aliens will not destroy us; it will be creatures of our own creation. Synthetic life will evolve on Mars and come back to eradicate us. These Synths must be stopped before it's too late!

--
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
1. Re:The end is nigh! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  Synthetic life will evolve on Mars and come back to eradicate us. These Synths must be stopped before it's too late!
  We already have, and it already is, huhman..
2. Re:The end is nigh! by barutiwa · 2010-05-25 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Really who can stop this from happening? Space is the final frontier. It is unregulated. There is no government. Tell me, who can stop any one in the private sector from experimenting with synthetic life-forms on Mars or any other planet, moon or asteroid? If government make regulations to control the advent of synthetic life, then who can stop a rogue individual or group from carrying out their nefarious experiments in space?
3. Re:The end is nigh! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Harrison Ford?
Oh it's fine. by Aphoxema · 2010-05-25 01:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not so worried about this. Monsanto already showed exceptional responsibility with their GM patents on 99.5% of the crops our food, clothes, textiles, and medicines come from. Let's take it to the next step.

--
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
1. Re:Oh it's fine. by Barrinmw · 2010-05-25 01:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It is ok for there to be potential for abuse as long as the person with the power does not abuse it? But what happens when they decide to?
2. Re:Oh it's fine. by Aphoxema · 2010-05-25 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  It is ok for there to be potential for abuse as long as the person with the power does not abuse it? But what happens when they decide to?
  Just pretend it never happened, stupid.
  
  --
  "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
3. Re:Oh it's fine. by dkleinsc · 2010-05-25 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I believe you need to have your sarcasm detector replaced.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
4. Re:Oh it's fine. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 06:16 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  @Aphoxema: my guess is you are a Monsanto employee because if there's one company being terribly irresponsible with their patents on LIFE (which I can think should be forbidden), it would be Monsanto.
  Please watch the documentary "Food Inc." and you'll see the true face of this horrible company.
  I'm talking:
  - seeds with suicide gens in them so farmers can only use them once
  - plants that grow only once and do not provide seeds at all, so they have to be bought again at Monsanto
  - 70 Monsanto employees scouring the US 24/7 looking for patent infringements and when they find farmers that reuse their seeds those are put out of business
  The sad example where the seeds of a farmer using Monsanto seeds blew over to his neighbor who did not use those seeds and Monsanto now suing the neighboring farmer for illegally using their seeds...
  Yes, very responsible indeed.
  It all comes down to the fact that patenting life is simply outrageous. But I'm afraid the Monsanto case has set a precedent and the current applications will be successful.
  But once again, watch "Food Inc." and form your own opinion.
5. Re:Oh it's fine. by shaitand · 2010-05-25 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  I'm hoping you intended sarcasm and just forgot that you need to state it explicitly for anyone to know in text land.
6. Re:Oh it's fine. by Aphoxema · 2010-05-25 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  *sigh*
  
  --
  "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
7. Re:Oh it's fine. by Aphoxema · 2010-05-25 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'm hoping you intended sarcasm and just forgot that you need to state it explicitly for anyone to know in text land.
  I didn't "forget" to state it explicitly, I'm just not worried about explaining myself for the idiots who don't get it.
  
  --
  "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
patents slow innovation -- here a good thing ? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 01:03 · Score: 0

The usual slashdotter objection to patents is they slow innovation and introduce excessive expense and risks especially for small scale developers. Maybe here this is a good thing. I'm not sure I mind so much not having lots of wannabe Dr. Frankensteins going crazy with this technology before we have a little time as a society to get our regulations up to speed on the matter. The law is slow, after all.
1. Re:patents slow innovation -- here a good thing ? by infinitelink · 2010-05-25 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's already done all the time with non-directed mutation-induction that's done because the government doesn't have two bits of a clue about what genetic manipulation is: if you purposefully and carefully, intelligently insert a gene into some sequence of DNA, for instance, it's "genetically modified", but if you mutate the hell out of something with high-intensity U.V.s until you have some apparently desirable phenotypes (without knowing what's actually gone-on underneath the surface, and no idea of other potential side-effects), it isn't (legally speaking) considered such, nor do you have to notify anybody of what you've done, whether it's a plant or a microbe. There are also already plenty of biohackers out there, but the difference between those who hack on biology and those who hack, say, on electronics, is that in the former you really do have to know what you're doing, not because of consequences but because if you don't it just doesn't work: unless, of course, nature decides to do things itself: actually keeping specific, desired, bacteria alive and getting certain outcomes in a lab isn't actually that easy, though it may seem to be to those outside of the field.
  
  --
  Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
Patents stiffle innovation ? hahaha come on by unity100 · 2010-05-25 02:02 · Score: 0, Flamebait

youve got to be kidding me. did medieval feudalism stifle economic activity ?

--
Read radical news here
No, it was book title confusion. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 02:31 · Score: 0

"Next" is the book by Michael Crichton whose plot reality seems to be stealing from. "Extereminate" is one of Stephen King's lesser known novels about exterminating people via insemination.
1. Re:No, it was book title confusion. by Thanshin · 2010-05-25 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  And "Twilight" is one of Some Guy's* lesser known novels about exterminating people via vampiric homosexuality.
  *: I refuse to search the name of the author of Sparkly Pedos.
2. Re:No, it was book title confusion. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  No, actually it's Some Woman's novels about her vapid romantic fantasies. Its popularity shows that many women have equally vapid notions of romance. It's amazing how intermingled their idea of romance is with what typically prompts restraining orders.
  The one thing that I wish that women would take as a lesson from that story of their dreams of role substitution with the main character is that nobody can read your damned minds.
How else do you expect by geekoid · 2010-05-25 02:37 · Score: 1

the Tyrell Corp. to maintain it's stranglehold on off world mining?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Blade Runner by KneelBeforeZod · 2010-05-25 03:43 · Score: 1

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that thought of Blade Runner.
Maybe its because all the the synthetic pets in the movie/book had microscopic serial numbers. Serial numbers had become like cattle brands for mass production items. And those critters were biological AND artificially made.
Mass production? by mangu · 2010-05-25 04:50 · Score: 1

Corporation X sees invention and masses produces it for less than Average Joe can
Oh, no, that's the old theory. Haven't you heard? Average Joe can produce stuff so cheaply that large corporations cannot compete.
Look at the media industry: despite mass production, they are completely unable to print CDs and DVDs at a lower cost than Average Joe does at home.
Inaccurate history by wednai · 2010-05-25 05:09 · Score: 1

"Fortunately, Sulston won the last round and the HGP is freely accessible..."
Before Celera existed, the public HGP was already going to be freely accessible as a consequence of the Bermuda Accord and taxpayer funding (does that make it noble or just obligatory?). In the end, Celera gave away its assemblies (they're in GenBank) and its genome assembly software (it's in sourceforge (GPL)) (was that obligatory?).
I haven't read the patent application associated with his synthetic genome work, but I encourage people not to assume it is overbroad.
BTW, search uspto.gov for patents listing "venter, j craig" as an inventor & then do the same for "collins, francis" (head of the public HGP). Guess who has more patents?
1. Re:Inaccurate history by Omestes · 2010-05-25 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  BTW, search uspto.gov for patents listing "venter, j craig" as an inventor & then do the same for "collins, francis" (head of the public HGP). Guess who has more patents?
  You have to be careful with searches like this. There is such a thing as a defensive patent, where the patenter patents an idea to keep other people from patenting it and closing it off. I don't think I've ever used the same word in a sentence as much as in that one. For the sake of brevity you can read it as "patenter patents patents with patents"
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
2. Re:Inaccurate history by Thing+1 · 2010-05-25 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  FWIW, your signature exactly matches the type of meme you were trying to express. Nice juxtaposition, there.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Doesn't make sense by snowwrestler · 2010-05-25 05:20 · Score: 1

Which would have given others with less money more of a chance to work on this, without feeling it would be fruitless to compete against the big pockets and risk being sued into oblivion.
No patent has been granted yet. So what has kept them from working on it for the last 15 years?
What kept them from starting 16 years ago and beating Venter to the punch?

--
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Patenting a number? by flux00 · 2010-05-25 05:33 · Score: 0

Isn't there a 1-1 correspondence between the naturals and DNA? It's like counting in base 4 (G,A,T,C,GG,GA...) Can I patent [1,4^300,000,000-1]?
Patents are bullshit by AthleteMusicianNerd · 2010-05-25 07:24 · Score: 1

What if Newton, Turing, Von Neumann, Einstein, Boole, or any of the major geniuses had patents on their work. We'd still be living with port a potties in our backyards.
Not just in biology... by CondeZer0 · 2010-05-25 07:56 · Score: 1

All patents, which are basically government granted monopolies, are extremely damaging.
Biology patents, like software patents, are just a particularly egregious example, but the same is true of patents in other fields.

--
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
Only niggers patent nature by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-25 08:16 · Score: 0

you greedy jew kike cocksucksers
No, no, no... it's about the licensing. by zooblethorpe · 2010-05-25 08:26 · Score: 1

It's the "gene patent pool", or "GPP". Soon to offer you your very own "Gene Patent License", or "GPL", so you can "open source" yourself. Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. Provided, of course, that you agree to these teensy weensy conditions in the fine print, and pay our nominal licensing fee...
(I'm not sure if this is funny, or depressing.)
Cheers,

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Oooooh by unity100 · 2010-05-25 09:37 · Score: 1

flamebait ...

--
Read radical news here
The Objectivist Viewpoint (Read before hating it) by louzer · 2010-05-26 07:07 · Score: 1

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html

--
Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
Real patent reform by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-31 09:08 · Score: 0

Perhaps this is one of the issues that Congress should address when the next patent reform bill comes up, about ten years from now. I'm not sure we can afford to wait that long for action on this matter, however. Though the Myriad case currently under review might mention the issue of patenting syns, Myriad will not serve as binding precedent for this particular topic. So my guess is that the syn patenting issue will remain undecided until the lawsuits begin ... or until someone in Congress unexpectedly grows a pair.