Slashdot Mirror
Human Gene Patent Challenged In Australian Court
dov_0 writes "Following a successful patent challenge in the US, an action is underway in Australia to have patents on two breast cancer genes declared invalid."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
No, it's an existing gene. The patent usually works by stating the gene in question has been determined to do x and they write the patent so it loosly covers anything that might interact with that gene to alter or manipulate its function, hence they effectivly hold a patent on the gene.
The main reason these patents were allowed was to help refund the costs of the research into these genes. By forcing researchers, drug companies, ect. to license the use of the gene, it helped the initial team of researchers/parent company recover the money they sunk into finding the gene.
The implication of this ruling is a loss of profitability via research. Whether this is actually the case or not will be determined by time.
"Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
There's also a documentary coming up about gene patents, as corporations already seem to own 20% of the human genes. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1305236092/your-genes-have-been-patented-a-feature-documentar
Because they'd get counter-sued for producing more of them in violation of the patent?
Actually, I may have just seen why allowing the patenting of (pre existing) genes is insane in the membrane.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I doubt it. The vast majority of basic biology research was done without patenting that knowledge and trying to sell it in some way, which is sort of what Myriad Genetics was trying to do. There are grants for basic research, the point of that is to fund research which was important but not directly profitable. If someone is saying "the only way this research will get done is if I can sell the knowledge afterwards," they are lying.
except that I've seen articles indicating that companies are patenting genes without even knowing what they do, just that it's been fully sequenced and they shoot of a patent app.
It was said tongue-in-cheek and please take the statement as such.
However, seriously, if they should find a "cure" for specific cancers... My statement holds true. People will need to be treated as they develop new cancers during their lifetime; and, their life expectancy will increase because the cancers can be resolved, like a bacterial infection is now. There will be no Holy Grail of cancer cures. We may, eventually, be able to provide "vaccines" for common cancers caused by viral infections and common genetic anomolies. There will still be plenty of the odd cancers caused by random replication errors.
Crap. this was meant as a reply to sibling, not parent. Why can't we edit or delete our posts here again?
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
As an ex-USPTO examiner, I can say that genes are not patentable, nor were they. What is patented is exactly what you claim to be alright with: methods for looking at the genes, methods for manipulating the genes and other chemicals that do stuff to the genes.
The problem is that often there is only one method of looking at a gene, or one method of manipulating a gene. Sometimes the physics limits the methods to a single one. Patenting that method effectively patents the gene, which was the case at bar.