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)
Sadly, unless the courts in each respective country declare this type of patent to be invalid, this in only the beginning of a long, long process. All those patents. In all the countries. Tested one or two, or even a handful at a time... The patents might expire before the issue of patentability of the human genome (or any naturally occuring genome, for that matter) is resolved.
This shit won't end well if people are allowed to patent genes.
The methods for finding genes? sure, medications you can make from studying genes? sure. Genes? no.
A company is more then welcomes to keep there findings as a trade secret. It's a pretty shitting thing to do in an industry founded on sharing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I see no problem with my tax dollars going to research, its other things they use my tax dollars for that pisses me off.
A little voice in the back of my mind is saying that cancer research is something that should be backed with my tax dollars, such that they are.
That's fucking sick.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Yep, it's already available to drug and biotech companies for their investments into developing treatments for many conditions and diseases. They can exploit these innovations/inventions for the legal time the patent is valid, and they do. They make a LOT of money as a return for their investments.
However, the development of drugs or artificial implants does not entitle a company to patent the relevant body part. A gene is a body part. Why should it be any different? I seriously object to any part of my natural body being subject to a patent, simply because it has been identified. It would be an infringement to my basic human right to exist.
Whoosh.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
Allow me to don the tinfoil hat for a moment, but if cancer research is a private field, I don't think they would strive towards finding a cure, or if they found it, I'm not sure they would publish it. There is much more money in treating repeat customers.
I'm not saying that its happening, just that I wouldn't be all too surprised if it were.
Government dollars are for difficult projects that improve our lives, like trillion dollar wars, multi million dollar arms sales to future enemies we'll fight in trillion dollar wars, and so forth.
Easy things like cancer research that carry zero benefit for the population at large should be privately owned forever by unaccountable tyrannies. Not only do we spend billions of dollars on erectile dysfunction research and marketing instead of cancer, but the drug companies also get to spend two to four times more money for marketing than research, which results in lots of awesome TV commercials.
It's a win-win!
Than those companies need to give up. places like http://www.vai.org/ are doing research and giving it free to the world.
Sometimes "the greater good" is better than a profit margin.
And the funny part is the best scientists are being drawn to the Institutes that allow them to do research without reporting to the board and justifying profit margins.
I have yet to find anyone that has went to college to work on genetics and cure diseases because "I'm gonna be stinking rich" they do it because they want to help humanity.
It's the Business degrees that whore the world for dollars.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I think the argument that I would make (and most reasonable people who are not entirely against the whole concept of patents) is that it would be perfectly reasonable to patent the drug you developed to fight Breast Cancer based upon your discovery of this gene. Patenting the gene itself is not reasonable. I cannot patent my discovery that steam forced into a confined space can turn temperature energy into kinetic energy. I can patent the steam engine I built based on this realization. I cannot patent my discovery that these specific proteins in combination result in a Breast Cancer gene. I can patent the drug I synthesized to combat breast Cancer based on this gene's construction.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
nice over reaction.
There is a place for IP. It's a good thing that has gone too far. Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The basic assumption is that patents encourage innovation. I've met a couple of inventors. They weren't primarily motivated by getting a patent. They just wanted to see if it, whatever it is, would work. Inventors don't like doing patent searches, much less paying someone else to do them. They like to tinker.
I suppose someday, we'll read in the news that patents have a great social cost than benefit.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
You know, I wouldn't have as big a problem with this if the USPTO just required one thing before issuing a patent: a working demonstrative prototype for every claim.
If they had actually cured cancer, I wouldn't mind so much them owning the cure for cancer (after all, in 17 years everybody gets it dirt cheap - a huge win for humanity).
The problem is that they don't have a cure for cancer, and nobody else is going to bother to target this gene for developing a cure for cancer due to the encumbrance. So, humanity loses out in the stifling of future discovery.