Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Human Gene Patent Challenged In Australian Court

Posted by kdawson on from the if-they-can-patent-leather dept.

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."

27 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. May be missing the point of the patent system by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Aren't patents supposed to protect inventions rather than just discoveries of something that exists already? Or are they claiming that they created those breast cancer genes in labs and forcefully injected it in their test subjects?

    1. Re:May be missing the point of the patent system by confused+one · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:May be missing the point of the patent system by Random2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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!"
    3. Re:May be missing the point of the patent system by thms · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Playing the devils advocate: Patents exist to encourage research which, when completed, could be easily "stolen". If there were no patents, nobody would research something which a competitor could copy without doing any of the work; or everyone would obfuscate their findings if possible.*

      So a company invests millions to find a gene which plays a role in cancer, i.e. it finds the connection and not just patents random junk hoping to score something later - shouldn't this be rewarded or protected somehow? If this is just one step towards a drug, competitors could just jump onto their findings and get a half-free ride.

      * or, of course, the state does all the research and any individual with a smart idea which this big system doesn't support is left to his own devices with no protection from being deprived of his reward. Obviously, middle ground is where the solution is, not that I have any idea where exactly that is.

    4. Re:May be missing the point of the patent system by davester666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes. Now float off my lawn.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:May be missing the point of the patent system by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:May be missing the point of the patent system by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:May be missing the point of the patent system by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    8. Re:May be missing the point of the patent system by meerling · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:May be missing the point of the patent system by robotkid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      Yes, but you are looking at the wrong end of the drug pipeline. The ultimate goal of said research is for actual therapies and treatments to be invented, which can then enjoy patent protection. Patenting the gene itself creates a highly restrictive environment where only those with agreements with the patent holder can even consider embarking on the (much more costly and difficult) search for a treatment.

      There are researchers in the community, BTW, that are now legally barred from working on disease treatments for genes they discovered because they felt it was unreasonable to patent and restrict access to it, only to find out that patent troll biotech companies had read their work and successfully patented the same information and are now suing for compensation. So think about before you generalize on the hypothetical research implications of patentability, this is happening now.

    10. Re:May be missing the point of the patent system by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    11. Re:May be missing the point of the patent system by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  2. only the beginning by confused+one · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  3. Investors Flee the Scene by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Look at their stock in the last month and then look down at related companies on that page and see how every single company in that industry has suffered stock prices plummeting in the last month. Not saying it's a bad thing or that these patents shouldn't be overturned but it was pretty obvious. Just to prepare everyone, you will see a short term drop in research devoted to identifying cancer genes unless it's government backed with your tax dollars.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Investors Flee the Scene by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Investors Flee the Scene by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Investors Flee the Scene by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Many-if-not-most of those private non-profits are funded by government grants. Organizations like the American Cancer Society, direct donations, and similar charitable activities fund the rest, true, but without doing a LOT more research than you have there is no way to determine how much of any individual lab's budget comes from government grants vs. private charitable donations. Having worked for research institutions and having had my wife work for the American Heart Association, I can reasonably guess that the government pays for at least half of the health care research in this country. At least. Of course I'm kinda pulling numbers out of my butt too, and I doubt either of us has the time to really research the matter. At any rate, no the government doesn't *do* much research. It *pays* for research.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    4. Re:Investors Flee the Scene by confused+one · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Investors Flee the Scene by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
  4. Good by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  5. Patents... by Pojut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Patents are a great idea, but the whole concept has been completely raped. The USPTO awards many patents that have no business being granted, and many applicants try to make their claims as broad as possible.

    "But if we only claim what we invented, we won't make as much money!" The entire purpose is to protect what you invent, fuckwads. Stop stifling innovation by creating a pencil but applying for a patent that attempts to cover any tool used to write.

    --
    Living With a Nerd
  6. Who Owns you? by nawitus · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  7. ip law is a failure by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the idea that you create a temporary monopoly (which seems to get less temporary every day) in order to encourage the creation of arts and technology has costs which outweigh the supposed benefit. for those who actually create, there are ancillary revenue streams which require no such legal protection

    its time to completely trash ip law. all of it. copyrights, patents: trash it, all of it

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:ip law is a failure by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. Re:If the patent is ruled valid... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  9. Re:Let the Free Market Figure it Out by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whoosh.

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  10. No.... by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!