Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stem Cell Research Running Into IP Brick Walls

Posted by Soulskill on from the still-waiting-on-my-patent-on-cell-division-to-come-through dept.

hlovy writes "The profit motive can — yes, shockingly — drive biotech research. But, according to a report by the AFP news agency, this same drive to make money is actually putting the brakes on embryonic stem cell research. With the research already set back years due to government research bans, US scientists now face roadblocks because other universities or companies have secured exclusive rights."

131 comments

  1. What about government hindering innovation? by intellitech · · Score: 0

    See? Preemptively banning technology or research without full, neutral investigation of it's utility/results is stupid.

    And I sincerely believe this will not be the last time politicians hinder innovation in the U.S., which makes me really, really sad. As long as politicians let petty religious bias and corporate corruption control their sway, the citizens of this country will suffer.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I thought the problem was with the IP, not with the delay.

    2. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by mark72005 · · Score: 2

      The biases only deal with embryonic stem cell research, which is but a subset of all types of stem cell research. For the record, I don't think you need a religious bias to object to embryo farming or similar (since this is /., we are allowed/required to carry out what-could-happen as far as possible)

      Much more important than a petty political point is pointing out that exclusivity contracts in medical research are stupid. We should be attempting to advance as quickly as humanly and ethically possible in these fields, and awarding exclusivity for profit motivated (don't kid yourself, they are) universities and research institutions is damaging and nonsensical.

    3. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by natehoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is, but without the ban on government funding of that research, a lot of the research would now be publicly funded and therefore public domain. Instead, the private sector filled in, and have managed to get exclusive patents on a lot of the stuff they researched, meaning that even if the government or other companies do the legwork themselves the results cannot be applied to further research.

      If the government funds the discovery of "a process to replace organs using self-donated tissue and stem cells", then many companies can refine that technique, apply it, and the one who comes up with a way to do it the most cheaply and effectively wins (but everyone else can apply it in different ways which may be more suitable for different organs, etc).

      If a private company funds the discover of the same process, they can patent it, and no one else has any incentive to make improvements to the process unless the company that funded it is feeling generous.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      That's nice and all, but government granted time limited monopolies on certain technologies (commonly referred to as "patents") are the problem here. Remove those, and everyone can benefit from research and increased competition. Then it won't matter who pays the check; everyone can benefit. Paying companies to not patent things (which is what this amounts to) is a round about way of just getting rid of the things.

      --
      SSC
    5. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by hajihill · · Score: 1

      Doesn't this all stem from a desire to maintain the status quo. By preventing others from outshining them, those in power retain power. Be it economic or political, stifling innovation in the competition has always been the award for coming out on top.

      --
      Of blankness, I know nothing.
    6. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're claiming that government-funded research isn't patented. That's not how it works.

    7. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by Biggseye · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      then do not rely on the Government to pay for it. Only Government money came with strings. Get off the damn Government dole. The citizen suffer cause idiots like you think the government is the answer and not the cause of most of our problems.

    8. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by spun · · Score: 2

      Why do you think that embryonic stem cell research will lead to embryo farming, and why is simply banning embryo farming itself not sufficient to solve the problem?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    9. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no ban.

    10. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by GigsVT · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You actually believe that research and development funded with tax money winds up in the public domain? What a naive liberal.

      The way it works is that public money is given to universities and such which have aggressive patent portfolio departments. They operate these patent portfolios in order to extract as much money from the private sector as possible licensing the IP that they "developed" using tax money.

      Its the same with copyrights on software. Tax money funds the development of software which is then made into proprietary products.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    11. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

      What would suddenly make politicians resistant to pettiness, bias and corruption for the first time in history?

      Rule of thumb: Only let politicians make decisions where it doesn't matter if that's what's controlling them. Reserve the rest of the decisions for individuals. Reform will ebb and flow, it will look more chaotic and piecemeal, but on average you'll get the better end result sooner.

      --
      Pi Ran Out
    12. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

      Remove those, and everyone can benefit from research and increased competition

      Everyone except for the people paying for the research, that is. All they get are the bills and the lawsuits.

      Patents exist to encourage research spending. If there's no expectation of being able to recoup your research costs, why research at all? Why not just wait for other companies to pay for the research, then swoop in and take all the profit yourself? Except there won't be "other companies" doing the research, as they won't be interested in footing the bill without compensation either.

      Might as well pass a law saying "the private sector is forbidden to do R&D, all research will be publicly funded in accordance with the personal and political whims of bureaucrats who control the budget allocations deciding what will, and won't, be researched". Same result: no private sector research, and public research strangled by the Christian Reich.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    13. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > exclusivity contracts in medical research are stupid.
      I don't think that's exactly the problem. The article is about patents.

      Lots of people have problems with biotech patents because it seems immoral to patent a life form.

      I sympathize with that view, but in my opinion DNA is software. On patenting software I like Donald Knuth's view, that software is math and it makes no sense to patent math.

    14. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by joocemann · · Score: 2

      Embryo farming is already illegal.

      The *only* way embryonic stem cells can be sourced is from left over in-vitro fertilization work.

    15. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yawn. Another post about how the market solves everything, despite having zero evidence that this is the case.

    16. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      ...sorry... --or from passing/growing of established embryonic stem cell lines that have been around for 20-ish years.

    17. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yawn. Another braying about another post, claiming there being zero evidence without providing any evidence themselves.

    18. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      The profit motive is great. However, have you ever tried to put together a business plan longer then 10 years? Engage in high risk research? [In the sense that very little of it becomes profitable]. Or that your best ideas will be stolen by your competitors? After all, it normally takes 10+ years to go from idea to table top to the factor floor? And big ideas are not patentable.

      I am all for corporations exploiting the profit motive, but you want the right tool for the right job. And basic research, with it positive externalities which are not captured by the bottom line, is something that government is good at.

      Now, all we need to do is talk about post docs who hoard research so they can be first to publish. The profit motive is not the only issue.

    19. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by joocemann · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but James Thompson, the man who patented the embryonic stem cell, has not patented any novel DNA or idea. He patented something he didn't invent nor engineer; he patented something he had nothing to do with aside from observation, and only won because our patent system is so out of date it doesn't know how to address life forms, and that he was the first person to try to.

      This same jerkoff (or is it the patent system that's wrong here) charges you $200k licensing per year to do any biomedical research with it, and $5k a year for universities to license simply to do any academic research at all.

      Nothing about the patent is worthy of a patent. On the contrary, Yamanaka's Induced Pluripotent Stem cell work is patentable, as he has invented novel ways to revert differentiated cells to stemness. Sheng Ding has also pioneered new methods that don't include lentiviral methods (like Yamanaka), and instead use small molecules that are homologous to the desired IPSC-inducing biochemicals (Sox2, nanog, oct4, etc).

      To offer some contrast: if Yamanaka were like Thompson, he could have patented the IDEA of 'reverting differentiated cells to stem-like cells exhibiting stemness". And in doing so he would be able to cover with his patent that which Ding has done, despite Ding having his own method. But I'm sure nearly every democratic voter here would agree that Yamanaka and Ding have achieved the same end by different means, and thus would each have patents to their methodology.

      Fortunately, IPSC are *NOT* ESC, and so for now people can do stem-cell research without paying the JT tax simply because JT was 'first'.

    20. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Preemptively banning technology or research without full, neutral investigation of it's utility/results is stupid.

      Of course, noone banned either research or technology in the case of stem cell research. Or even of embryonic stem cell research.

      Refusal to pay for something is not actually the same thing as banning it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    21. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Patents exist to encourage research spending.

      But there's simply no empirical evidence to suggest that they actually do. See Boldrin and Levine "Against Intellectual Monopoly"

      Being the first to market has huge advantages, and second most of the time R&D costs to actually get a copy system worked out is comparable to the original R&D costs.

      The only notable exception is in pharmaceuticals because of the FDA. There are huge costs getting a drug approved for market (which dwarf the development costs). The solution is to separate drug manufacture, and drug effectiveness testing companies. Given the recent track record or the pharmacological companies, I don't see how a public drug effectiveness testing program could to much worse.

      The bio feild is especially bogged down by patents. It is almost impossible to do any sort of research without trampling on a patent. Allowing someone to sequence a gene found in nature was a bad idea.

    22. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Right scientific, industrial, and computing methods are very precise, but patents are written very broadly. The only people winning are the lawyers and patent trolls.

    23. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      It seems like any technologically developing country with a large internal market (HINT: INDIA) would be the death of the Western R&D business model sooner rather than later.

      We've got a nice little ball of patents acting like the Tar Baby (look it up, kids), enveloping all who dare approach. The "success" of this model, however, depends on everyone agreeing to the same set of rules. The first time an American doctor tells a patient "They can cure that in Asia" will be the signal to dump every single one of your stocks.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    24. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by eddeye · · Score: 1

      On patenting software I like Donald Knuth's view, that software is math and it makes no sense to patent math.

      Software is "just math" in exactly the same way math is "just numbers". Which is not at all. Software is a complex set of instructions that performs electronic work. Just like a physical machine is a complex set of parts that performs mechanical work. Only an average software program is orders of magnitude more complex (more moving parts, if you will) than the most complicated physical machine.

      You can describe a catapult using pretty simple mathematics, that doesn't make it trivial to build one. Show me a mathematician at a computer terminal and I'll show you abstruse spaghetti code. You could let a million mathematicians hammer out code for a million years and not come up with anything resembling facebook. Programming is about choosing and assembling innumerable building blocks in precise ways to accomplish useful tasks. It has fuck-all to do with math except in a limited theoretical sense (algorithmic complexity and all that).

      Which is not to say today's software patents aren't overbroad - they are. But to categorically exclude software patents as different from mechanical endeavors is to fundamentally misunderstand what software is.

      I am a computer scientist and I am a patent lawyer.

      --
      Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
    25. Re:What about government hindering innovation? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I think the issue most slashdotters have is the lack of acknowledgment to alternate licensing methods (FLOSS), and the conflict patent law creates. An exemption for such software would cure most such problems, even if patents remain broad. Though after a certain limit, the described algorithms are too abstract and catchall to be reasonably patented. Not to mention patents on formats...

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  2. Only Difference from Software and Mobile Phones by eldavojohn · · Score: 2

    I could argue that the exact same situation holds true in the world of software and mobile devices (especially UI) worlds. The key difference is that these stem cell companies are all suing each other up front. What are they thinking? That's the honorable way to conduct yourself when you hold intellectual property but certainly not the most profitable. Haven't they learned that you're supposed to wait until an infringing product is sold the world over with their highest stock price in years before you start the license extortion/lawsuit?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Only Difference from Software and Mobile Phones by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Funny

      "In this new Sony Biotech Update, all users who previously used to Run have been downgraded to Walk. No apologies have been issued to any members of the Special Olympics."

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:Only Difference from Software and Mobile Phones by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      I could argue that the exact same situation holds true in the world of software and mobile devices (especially UI) worlds.

      You could argue that the same situation holds true in every situation where patents are used..

  3. The way it ought to be by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The way IP SHOULD work is this : first of all, compulsory licensing. If you patent any idea, or ask for government protection against unauthorized people who pirate or create a knockoff of your product, then you MUST

    1. Offer terms for a license to the technology, with rates proportional to the industry and the value of the product
    2. Provide the technical details needed for someone else who licenses your idea to begin work within 30 days of payment of initial fees for licensing.

    1. Re:The way it ought to be by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 2

      The way IP SHOULD work is this:

      1. Inventor applies for a patent
      2. Inventor hangs patent on wall
      3. Everyone else continues as before

      I used to be pro-patent, but I feel that the incentive to get a patent (i.e. invent something) is outweighed by the incentive to hire lawyers and sue all those who use the idea.

      --
      SSC
    2. Re:The way it ought to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the industry doesn't exist? What if the patented idea gives me a competitive advantage in an existing market, but required a very high upfront cost to develop?

      Compulsory licensing isn't the answer; but you might argue that you need to go from patent to prototype in a reasonable amount of time or then your patented technology gets put into a public exchange and you get paid for use.

    3. Re:The way it ought to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point 1 is impossible. You'd have to basically have to say the maximum license cost per item would be the incremental profit of the item for the patent holder. Good luck getting a reasonable number on that; the court cases from "excessive license fee" suits would probably only make patents worse.

      Point 2 is a requirement for a patent to be accepted; it has to contain everything someone in the field would need to replicate the invention. Which they do...

      The problem isn't either of those things, the problem is that a bank can, for example, get a patent for giving you an extra day to cover an overdraft. Point 2 is covered well. Point 1? The thing is unquantifiable and basically worthless anyway; they just want to have something to run ads about for a while. By the time licensing arrangements were made no one would care anymore.

      Biotech's the same way... "Patent blah: blah blah stem cells blah diabetes \ ITP we blather on about how we could possibly do something with stem cells that will do something for humans with beeties". There's no invention, no investment, no useful information, yet the USPTO grants it. Compulsory licensing? It doesn't _exist_ yet, you can't say how much it's worth. Disclosure? The did already: the patent is for using stem cells on diabetes, and they tell you 'we administer stem cells to people with diabetes'. It's not enough information to do anything useful, but the patent doesn't cover anything useful to begin with.

    4. Re:The way it ought to be by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 1

      Proportional to which value? Patents are a temporary barrier to entry that give inventors a head start as an incentive to toil away. Compulsory licensing reduces the incentive. With infinite competition, the value is the marginal cost. With no competition, the value is the price that maximizes "monopoly rents." As a result, licensing diminishes value.

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    5. Re:The way it ought to be by rallen911 · · Score: 1

      Why SHOULD I be forced to license IP that I created, let alone provide technical details to allow others to use it? It's my idea! If I decide to protect it, then I should be protected. I can decide to license it, but if I don't, nobody else should be able to profit from it.

      If there is protected IP that you want to use, then you might actually be forced to come up with your own idea. Would you want to be forced to share that new idea and help your competition drive you out of business? Not likely!

      If you remove the incentive for the creation of new ideas, i.e. money, then you will get less of that. This is another case of people not thinking things through to the end.

    6. Re:The way it ought to be by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      I don't know. But if I, say, invent a new algorithm for engine control that lets a car save 1% on gas...I couldn't demand a $10,000 per car license fee. The fee has to be less than 100% of the value added by the invention itself. How much is 1% better gas mileage worth vs. the sale price of a car? It is possible to estimate that.

    7. Re:The way it ought to be by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      Why SHOULD I be forced to license IP that I created, let alone provide technical details to allow others to use it? It's my idea! If I decide to protect it, then I should be protected. I can decide to license it, but if I don't, nobody else should be able to profit from it.

      If there is protected IP that you want to use, then you might actually be forced to come up with your own idea. Would you want to be forced to share that new idea and help your competition drive you out of business? Not likely!

      If you remove the incentive for the creation of new ideas, i.e. money, then you will get less of that. This is another case of people not thinking things through to the end.

      Why should you get patent protection from the government? The idea that you have some sort of right to stop other people from doing anything that you thought of first is just plain stupid.

      The point of a patent is that you get protection in exchange for sharing your idea, and the argument against it is that that protection is frequently more valuable than sharing the idea (so it's a bad trade for the government to make).

    8. Re:The way it ought to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why should we enforce an artificial monopoly on your idea for your exclusive benefit if you would refuse to license it at reasonable prices enough to benefit society?

      Few people would say that innovators should not be rewarded for their innovation, but when those rewards stifle future innovation, then clearly theres a problem. Perhaps patents should only be protected when the invention is licensed at reasonable prices (there is probably a reasonable supply-demand estimation of this value).

      Further more, the bar for patents should be much higher: math, software and existing biological systems should be never be patentable.

    9. Re:The way it ought to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IP is a contradictory position to hold. The argument from effect is its own topic(which I also would say doesn't do what IP advocates think it does for reasons given here mises.org/books/against.pdf) but ignoring that for a moment, it isn't even a logically consistent idea at all; namely, it advocates violating property in the name of protecting that which is not actually property.

      If I make some software, or write a book or whatever, I absolutely wouldn't like my work to be copied and sold. This is not what I am refuting. I certainly think restricting those behaviors with contractual agreements and such are a valid and sensible approach.

      What is not valid is defining rules that contradict themselves:

      A owns his body. It is his property.
      B owns his body. It is his property.
      A has an idea for a new widget, so he builds one. No force yet, no violation of personal property.
      B sees the widget. He likes the widget, so he builds one, too. No force yet.
      B decides that he would like to risk a bunch of capital tooling up a factory in order to make widgets to sell to other people. No force yet.
      B is successful in making a profit by selling the widgets he has made. No force yet.
      A objects to B's profit-making, claiming that he got ripped off. No force yet.
      B is not worried. No force yet.
      A compels B to cease selling the widgets. He threatens harm to the body of B or external property B owns. Force is initiated by A against B. Property ownership has been violated in the name of protecting that which is not property.

      Full disclaimer, I copied the bulk of that example from a post here: http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/forums/p/6242/48655.aspx. In doing so, no transfer of property has occurred.

    10. Re:The way it ought to be by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      I like the first mover advantage better.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    11. Re:The way it ought to be by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      That's a really good idea.

      --
      expandfairuse.org
    12. Re:The way it ought to be by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      And of course, if you want to patent any idea, it should be, um, worthy of a friggin' patent first!

      These laws are so stupid and fucking pointless that it's clear that they don't serve their original purpose anymore. Is the US ever gonna see any reform in this area? No? Well then you get what you ask for: gradually falling behind....

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    13. Re:The way it ought to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job, you've just killed off all innovation in biotech. Do you have any idea how insanely expensive it is to bring a new drug to market vs how cheaply a knock-off competitor can pump out copies? No of course you don't. It's literally a billion-dollar difference.

    14. Re:The way it ought to be by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      someone should patent it

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    15. Re:The way it ought to be by sjames · · Score: 1

      Rent seeking is harmful to the economy and society. He didn't say compulsory FREE licensing, so you get to make a fair sum for your labor.

  4. Edison possibly ruined science forever by mykos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bury the real scientists in a mountain of FUD.

    Make great advancements, but don't pursue them unless they produce a profit.

    While you're not using those advancements, be sure to sue everyone who stumbles upon what you stumbled upon first.

  5. This is not how science should work by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    University researchers should be exempt by law from paying patent royalties/licenses.

    Period.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:This is not how science should work by Biggseye · · Score: 1

      wrong. As long as they get a single dollar from the Government or private sources, they should have to patent it to claim exclusive right and pay just like every one else does, no exemptions

    2. Re:This is not how science should work by geekoid · · Score: 1

      right, it's jsut the you're reading comprehension fails.

      Reread the poster post, then read your post. IF you still can't figureout what's wrong read below.
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .

      .
      . Apparently you are a moron.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:This is not how science should work by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Government money is tax money, paid by all the residents of the country. If everybody paid for it, then everybody should own it. Therefore anything financed with public money should be in the public domain, no exceptions.

    4. Re:This is not how science should work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another idiot that can read!

    5. Re:This is not how science should work by joocemann · · Score: 1

      FYI, Thompson charges universities a $5k/year licensing fee to reaserach ESC.

  6. goodbye! by boxxa · · Score: 1

    ah yes. way to go American government. lets send another industry that could create jobs and money for the country elsewhere because of our ridiculous laws due to money backed lobbyists.

    --
    Bryan
    1. Re:goodbye! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally! This is a present from Bush.

  7. For the last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It wasn't banned, it just wasn't funded by government. Stem cell research was welcome to continue, just not using government money.

    1. Re:For the last time by nedlohs · · Score: 0

      It says "government research bans". Which surely means "bans on research done by government" or "bans on research with government resources". Otherwise it would just be "research bans". Parsing "government research bans" is "research bans placed by the government" seems silly since who else can ban it in the first place?

    2. Re:For the last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good catch (!) recognizing some poor journalism!

    3. Re:For the last time by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Almost any research for stem-cell studies are going to be at least, in part, funded by the government. Every university that does research falls under that 'government money' umbrella. It's not like we can depend on the pharmaceutical industry to do the right thing -- that's what this entire story is about.

      If I were a researcher I would ignore the IP claims and fight it in court. A precedent needs to be set to prevent patents in regards to stem cell research. Patent some tool you've constructed for your lab, sure, but it's absurd to patent the concept in general with patents like "stem cells applied to fight diabetes." That's not even a specific process and they don't even have a working 'product' yet. It needs to be acknowledged that stem cells, as natural biological material, cannot be patented in any way, no matter what you do to them. Like plants (but unfortunately with plants big pharma will extract certain chemicals and patent the isolated chemical -- a precedent needs to be set to ban that as well).

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  8. Patents on naturaly occuring material by Mick+R · · Score: 2

    quite simply should be cancelled and banned. If some pharma company actually INVENTS some new gene that CANNOT occur due to natural mutation then fine, but when it occurs naturally ANYWHERE in nature then nobody should have the right to patent it. Clearly it was NOT their invention and discoveries and inventions are very different things. Patents on "business methods" and software should also be blanket cancelled and forbidden, the first because it's a ridiculous concept and the second because software is a written work and already covered by copyright law. Neither is a physical innovation, which is what patents were supposed to cover.

    1. Re:Patents on naturaly occuring material by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      If some pharma company actually INVENTS some new gene that CANNOT occur due to natural mutation then fine, but when it occurs naturally ANYWHERE in nature then nobody should have the right to patent it.

      Ah, so you have no problem with these patents, then? They're on isolated genes that CANNOT occur naturally.

      Patents on "business methods" and software should also be blanket cancelled and forbidden, the first because it's a ridiculous concept and the second because software is a written work and already covered by copyright law. Neither is a physical innovation, which is what patents were supposed to cover. ... then what exactly do you think was meant by the word "process" in when Congress wrote "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title"?

  9. Another example of US IP laws not working by cjcela · · Score: 1

    This is just one more field where current patent and copyright law hinders innovation. You cannot have a monopoly and pretend other people to innovate. Unless something change, the US future in science and technology is going to be crippled in the next couple of decades because of the overprotective nature of the current IP laws. As a side note, the idea that a company can be innovative while having profit as its ultimate objective is sorely misguided.

    1. Re:Another example of US IP laws not working by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Good news then.

      The moment it seriously impedes profit for large business, it will change.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Polio Vaccine by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Jonas Salk refused to patent the polio vaccine.. When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

    There is no 'greater good' research anymore, as long as people get their $. Capitalism: A Love Story is an interesting movie. Yes, it is Michael Moore, but if you go in expecting some slant it's entertaining to see how stuff has changed from "I'm not going to patent something that saved people from the Iron Lung" to "Screw you guys, I gotta get my patents".

    1. Re:Polio Vaccine by Biggseye · · Score: 1

      horse crap. the polio vaccine was developed as a profit making venture. "the greater good" is serviced by capitalism having the incentive to make a profit while helping others. I was alive then I know what happened,

    2. Re:Polio Vaccine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, exactly, is the merit of not patenting the vaccine? If all you cared about saving people from the iron lung, couldn't that be better done when you have the patent? By centralizing manufacturing, you could take full advantage of the economics of scale to minimize the price. Or, you could license it at not cost to other manufacturers if, for instance, it cost less for them to modify their existing capabilities than it would for you to upgrade/build your own.

      And if someone wanted to do research for the greater good, I'm _sure_ they'd be allowed by the patent holder (who would profit from it). This is just a bunch of people whining because some other company came up with the idea first.

      (Of course this is rather independent of the problem of the USPTO granting vague, unproven, or just way to many patents which _does_ stifle innovation.)

    3. Re:Polio Vaccine by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Could you patent the sun?"

      Please, do not give the patent trolls any ideas; they will try to patent this. "A method and process of using a massive hydrogen celestial body to generate energy with hydrogen to helium fusion."

      Back to the polio and Jonas Salk, a neighbor of mine when I was a child had caught it as a teenager, and spent most of his life on crutches. He had a PhD in physics and worked at RCA's David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton. He spoke very highly of Jonas Salk, and the fact that a lot of folks would be spared from what he had. But he was also very funny. He picked up his crutches one day and said to me, "Because of Dr. Salk's polio vaccine, you'll miss all the fun of walking around on crutches!"

      If I was in his situation, I would have become very bitter and hit anything in range with the crutches. "Hey, kids, come onto my lawn. Get a little closer to me. See what is written on my crutch in small letters? It says 'Louisville Slugger!" Whack!

      It is really saddening if medical research gets bogged down in legal issues.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Polio Vaccine by John+Saffran · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that selfish individuals will then take advantage of that .. Jonas Salk refuses to patent the polio vaccine? I'll patent it and sue him for a 'clear' breach of my invention.

      Sure, the 'prior invention' conditions should prevent this, but you can just DOS the patent offices by issuing requests for the most trivial things to prevent them from examining things in too much detail.

      The system doesn't punish patent grabbing, it encourages it in fact, so you have to get patents for defensive purposes .. truly a sad state of affairs.

    5. Re:Polio Vaccine by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Holy effin shit. Is people's knowledge of capitalism and free market economy that weak that they don't even understand what a patent is?

      A patent is a government enforced monopoly. As such, it represents a barrier to entry to a market, reducing competition and protecting incumbents. By definition, this means that a market with a patent is less efficient than one without.

      The only reason that patents exist is that people understand that inventions create NEW markets, and that said inventions require an up-front investment. Said investment has to have a chance to be recouped, or a free-market economy will actively prevent any R&D effort. That's why patents exist - so that in our style of economy, people actually have a reason to work on new stuff that doesn't have a market yet.

      People who work on things like vaccines while refusing to patent them ought to be given lifetime stipends to do whatever the fuck they want. Because they're the real saints and heroes of our world.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:Polio Vaccine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IP laws are not capitalistic, they are government-granted monopolies. The framers viewed them very clearly for what they were: tweaks on the free market which they believed would produce better results than the free market itself. Not only do I believe this was wrong, I believe it was immoral. Government, whose only powers are the collection of our individual powers, has no right to abridge the actions of some for the aggrandizement of others, no matter what the purpose. Government must always and only protect natural rights, never violate them. What kind of life, economy, and world we produce within that system of justice is up to society to determine for itself.

    7. Re:Polio Vaccine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      horse crap. being "alive then" does NOT mean you "know what happened".

      It just means you're old.

      The inventor of the polio vaccine didn't patent it. You know, PATENTS, the profit making device?

    8. Re:Polio Vaccine by stumblingblock · · Score: 1

      But the situation is different today. Universities need the income from products developed within their research facilities. Better it goes there than to some greedy capitalists, no? If it happens to save human lives, somehow no one should profit from it?

    9. Re:Polio Vaccine by bit01 · · Score: 1

      If it happens to save human lives, somehow no one should profit from it?

      No artificial scarcity actually. It is beyond stupid that 6,900,000,000 people should be blocked from doing something life saving so that one tiny group can have increased profit.

      Not to mention many university researchers double-dipping and generally acting quite dishonestly, being precisely the greedy capitalists and attention whores you imply they are not.

      ---

      Copyright rewards distributors (copiers) far more than creators.

    10. Re:Polio Vaccine by benhattman · · Score: 1

      "the greater good" is serviced by capitalism having the incentive to make a profit while helping others.

      Sigh, the libertarians come out again. Just as it would be foolish to suggest that nothing "greater good" can come out of capitalism, it's just as backwards to think capitalism is the only approach to the greater good. Capitalism is simply one approach to allocating resources. Nothing more, nothing less. Under certain circumstances, capitalism may be the most efficient system we know of for allocating resources, but in many cases it is not.

      As such, the only good that capitalism appears able to accomplish is those that involve increasing access to goods. Capitalism was one essential cog in giving more people access to clean running water, and it so happens that clean water has an unmistakably positive affect on one's well being. On the other hand, having many close friends is also incredibly good for one's health and I have yet to see capitalism's ability to make life better in that regard.

  11. Re:Totally avoidable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the Bible is responsible for stupid US IP laws? I think you are grasping at straws here.

  12. IANAL (Duh?), but Patents don't work like that. by Rashkae · · Score: 1

    I thought the whole point of the patent system was that the Inventions became public knowledge, such that inventors (and researchers) *could* in fact, learn from them and improve on them.

    Of course, if a researcher did make a breakthrough, actually bringing a product to market would require co-operation with the original patent holder for licensing / cross-licensing, but that is not a barrier to research.

    1. Re:IANAL (Duh?), but Patents don't work like that. by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      I thought the whole point of the patent system was that the Inventions became public knowledge, such that inventors (and researchers) *could* in fact, learn from them and improve on them.

      Of course, if a researcher did make a breakthrough, actually bringing a product to market would require co-operation with the original patent holder for licensing / cross-licensing, but that is not a barrier to research.

      Yep. Plus, if you read the article, the guy complaining about it isn't complaining that he can't get a license or do further research... He's complaining that he can't make as much money for his investors on it.

    2. Re:IANAL (Duh?), but Patents don't work like that. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I thought the whole point of the patent system was that the Inventions became public knowledge, such that inventors (and researchers) *could* in fact, learn from them and improve on them.

      That may have been the idea at one time, but the moronic "triple damages for wilful infringement" means that researchers effectively can't use the patent datatbase, lest they turn a normal infringement into a wilful infringement.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:IANAL (Duh?), but Patents don't work like that. by suutar · · Score: 1
      You mean the article containing these two paragraphs?

      Lanza recalls bumping up against his company's main competitor, Geron Corporation, when it came to researching stem cells in reversing diabetes, a process he said he had been working on with animals for many years.

      "When I came to ACT to try to do it with stem cells I couldn't because the rights to use embryonic stem cells for diabetes had been exclusively licensed to Geron," he said.

  13. Re:Totally avoidable. by cjcela · · Score: 1

    Yours is just wishful thinking. The issue is way more serious of who is the party in power. Do not be shortsighted. The current laws are not serving the purpose they were created for, and are only aligned with the interest of a few opportunistic companies. Look at the impact of patents in the software industry if not.

  14. Goodness by Biggseye · · Score: 1

    Imagine, Researchers not getting their own way, first that mean bunch of Conservative think the people of the US should not have to pay for them trying to play god. Then, Goodness they have to compete for private funds; gasp!!! Then the people that did invest want ownership of the results; the savages. Lest be completely honest about this. Most organizations that do medical research live off of government money, they think they know better then everyone else. They cry and cry when they do not get their own way, then if they do succeed, they want the money from it. Guess what folks, this is still a Free enterprise country. If you patent a process, if you pay to have it developed, you own it, the government should have 0 say in it. Remember, the Saulk group developed the polio Vaccine as a profit making project.

    1. Re:Goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what folks, this is still a Free enterprise country. If you patent a process, if you pay to have it developed, you own it, the government should have 0 say in it.

      Guess what? The government has an entire office for granting patents! If you want to remove the rights of other people to sell things that use the same methods yours do, you have to go crying to the government too. Assuming the market created this "ownership" is one of the things holding back conservatives seeing the flaws in IP law.

  15. Public domain by einstein4pres · · Score: 2

    Projects which accept federal grant money should require their products [patents, papers, etc.] to be placed in the public domain.

    I'm not particularly happy with private companies patenting stem cell research, but if they're patenting actual functioning procedures, then I might rescind my objections.

    "When I came to ACT to try to do it with stem cells I couldn't because the rights to use embryonic stem cells for diabetes had been exclusively licensed to Geron," he said."

    I hope that this is a poorly worded quote. "Using stem cells to cure diabetes" doesn't sound patentable to me. Perhaps they patented using the most logical path to curing diabetes? If it was so logical, how did it meet the patentability criteria? If it was so vague, how again?

    Lanza said his company has spent around 100 million dollars of investor funds on its research, and has had to play the game of securing intellectual property (IP) rights in order to compete.

    "I am coming from a company where we have blocking IP as well," Lanza said. "In order for us to get money we have to file patents to protect our rights otherwise we get prohibited from even pursuing our own technology.

    That's not how it's supposed to work. Of course, it might be cheaper to patent than defend against infringement claims, but that's also not how it should work.

    Are we hitting the point where patents are being held defensively here also? I hope that at the very least, cross-licensing will become common enough to not prevent research. Additional expenses will be passed onto consumers and move research overseas, which can hardly be good for the US.

  16. IP Brick Walls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off, they are called fire walls. And second, they just need to get a new ISP, and that will solve the problem. Also, did they try turning it off then back on?

  17. Note the U.S. Part... by Plekto · · Score: 1

    Our screwed up system here in the U.S. will only serve to send more and more scientists overseas to work where they can be free of this type of insanity.

    I know that if I was a 25 year old who had a degree in biology or engineering, I'd make a bee-line to Asia. The insanity concerning IP, copyrights, non-disclosure contracts, and on and on, plus the impossibility to finding work in the U.S. right now. There's so much red tape to do anything in this country now that everyone simply has lost the will to do anything about it.

  18. Henrietta Lacks... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

    I wonder what rights the descendants of this woman have in regards to all of this IP bullshit? Could they not simply claim rights and then allow full use by all? A global free-licensing, so to speak?

    Without this woman and her wonderful cells, none of this research would be happening. None.

    1. Re:Henrietta Lacks... by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I don't know. But if they're using an unlicensed copy of her DNA themselves, or a derivative work, then they may get sued. I suggest they keep quiet about it.

      --
      Nullius in verba
  19. The problem is... by gstrickler · · Score: 2

    ...they're running IPv4. They need update to IPv6, then they won't have those problems.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  20. "Life! Life! I have created life!" by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    "I'm sorry Dr. Frankenstein, but you have no right to use the intellectual property of life, The exclusive rights for life have been secured by the University of Transylvania. A mob of lawyers with pitchforks and torches is on its way here. You could appeal to the Dean of the Department of Screwing Around with Stem Cells at the University of Transylvania, Professor Dracula. But the only responses that I have received from him are, and I quote, 'Blaeh! Blaeh! Blaeh!' Before I could press the matter further, he turned himself into a bat, and flew away. Obviously, they are very advanced with their stem cell research."

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  21. I would like to... by MrQuacker · · Score: 2
    Buy a tanker and convert it to labs, then sail the ocean and do research out of the reach of lawyers.

    After all, there is no IP law in the middle of the pacific.

    1. Re:I would like to... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      But there is IP law where you want to sell the product; which is the point.

      News flash: You can have a lab and do all the research you want on patented cell research. In fact, you could even improve it and patent that.

      You keep being stupid, it suits you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I would like to... by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      How so? Say you create a stem cell treatment for a disease. If the patient comes to you, then the IP problems arent there. That has nothing to do with geography.

    3. Re:I would like to... by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      You might want to research the sea-steading institute. Although China would probably be more practical place to do it.

    4. Re:I would like to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But there is IP law where you want to sell the product; which is the point."

      Which is one he wasn't really trying to make. You are. His point to do research outside the reach of lawyers and restrictive IP is rather accurate; you can do the research.

      In fact, your attack of him, proves the sentiments of several others on here--that patents are there for profit only, as you see it that way as well--that is partly *your* point isn't it?

      btw, the ship is usually flagged under the port where it was made or the buyer it was sold to and is considered in said country's jurisdiction usually unless in anothers (such as port). As such, it likely has to follow the law and IP protection of the country whose flag it (or would) hoist even if at sea. You can likely find a country out there that doesn't have IP laws and ship out from there, but it'd be easier to do the research at that country. Still, it's an interesting situation, if you are 200 miles outside of all economic zones, you could circumvent IP law if your vessel is from a country that doesn't have an IP obligations--such as ferrying patients to and fro giving them treatments--true offshoring.

      "News flash: You can have a lab and do all the research you want on patented cell research. In fact, you could even improve it and patent that."

      Since you were rude to the prior poster, I'll be rude to you. The first part of yours is bull. Patent law in the US has the term "use" in it. Anyone who learns of your efforts can send essentially a cease and desist. It's rare. It doesn't happen usually. There is no point in dong so usually, since there is no profit in it. But it certainly can and has been done. Most people who do such research also don't talk or advertise it. And I also realize there are many universities that teach what you say, that you can do the research. They're wrong.

      Remember, patent law is still more civil than criminally minded in its handling. Meaning, the company holding the patent pushes for the enforcement of it through the courts. Usually it's not worth their time unless they want to inconvenience a competitor or hamper their progress. The overlooking or ignorance of the patent company usually leads, of course, to your second point, that you can patent an improvement, which is of course true, but again, you tie in stuff beyond the point you are originally trying to make.

      It'll be interesting to see if a patent lawyer tries to use the term use and go after improvements to get a cut. Which may explain why a lot of circumventing patent research is done outside the US. In any case, it's not as cut and dry as you make it seem; I was in a research lab where it was informally threatened an experiment would be shut down if there wasn't dual authorship on the upcoming paper. I've also heard of patent holders, not happy with research being done using their work, sending cease and desists, but that was hearsay (although I seem to recall something similar happening with a software patent on /. in the past year)..

      "You keep being stupid, it suits you."

      Except you were the one that provided little info, attacked, and supplied misinformation. Read US patent law before you insult someone, you ass.

    5. Re:I would like to... by Arterion · · Score: 1

      The patient's insurance company would refuse to pay. If they're paying out of pocket, how are they going to afford to cover all the overhead of the ship, tanks, equipment, etc.? If the research is privately funded, those people have to make their money back, too, even if they're looking to just break even and not profit. So what you'd end up with is breakthrough medical technology that's only available to the exceptionally affluent.

      I'm not sure that's any better, ideologically, than patents. At least with the patents, you can calculate how much money you're raking in hand over fist, and use your existing capital and investments to produce treatments. Oh, and get insurance to pay for it. That opens the doors to, at least, the middle class, and the higher parts of the working class, even if it DOES maintain the status quo.

      Theoretically, as a capitalist everyman, you could buy stock in the pharma that's creating the treatment and profit along with them. Though if you can barely afford your cost of living, that's really not an option.

      I mean, IP is really just a form of class warfare. The rich pay pennies for genius, own the creations of that genius, and extort the masses for the fruits of their own labors back.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
  22. Let's see if I got this straight by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    Let me see if I got this straight, some guy is complaining that since he couldn't use Federal money to do the research he wanted to do, someone beat him to it and now if he pursues it he won't be able to make as much money as he would like. Is that about the gist of this?
    And some /.ers are using that as an excuse to bash Bush for funding some embryonic stem cell research. He should have followed Clinton's lead and not allowed any federal fundign for embryonic stem cell research.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:Let's see if I got this straight by geekoid · · Score: 0

      "He should have followed Clinton's lead and not allowed any federal fundign for embryonic stem cell research."

      Except Clinton did allow fund for some Embryonic stem cells. Bush passed a law so no federal funding regarless of the source could happen.

      While Clinton was wrong, Bush as far, far worse.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Let's see if I got this straight by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Informative

      Under Clinton there was no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Additionally, Bush was President, so no, he did not pass a law of any kind. President Bush issued an Executive Order that allowed Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research as long as the research was on pre-existing stem cell lines. Before that, there was no federal funding of any embryonic stem cell research.
      I do not know where you got your "information", but it is completely wrong.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Let's see if I got this straight by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      There was no federal funding of stem cell research under Lincoln either.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    4. Re:Let's see if I got this straight by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      See, if Bush had refused to allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, Democrats would praise him after 100 years. After all, that's how long it took them to start admiring Lincoln.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:Let's see if I got this straight by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      He couldn't work in his field at all, because someone else patented any and all combinations of stem cells plus diabetus. If anything sounds catastrophically dumb, it's the ability to patent "stem cells plus * " and get a valid patent. It's like the old "internet plus * " and "computer plus * " patent storms all over again.

    6. Re:Let's see if I got this straight by RazorSharp · · Score: 0

      Lincoln started a Civil War, he was among our worst presidents, if not the worst. He encouraged General Grant to send as many soldiers to their deaths as possible b/c the north had the population to take the hit and the south didn't. The only thing distinguishing Grant and Lincoln from barbarians was the idealism that fueled their beliefs: that the citizens they were charged with protecting mattered so little that they could be sent to certain death for "the sake of preserving the union." Lincoln is personally responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any single other person or war.

      Of course, he'll always be glorified because he opposed slavery. Because killing people is so much more honorable than enslaving them (ooops. . .all those northern immigrants who were forced into the army as soon as they got off the boat. . .). It doesn't take a genius to realize that modern farming equipment was rapidly making slavery obsolete and unaffordable. Forget the over half a million killed, it was worth it b/c it ended slavery!

      Another interesting thing about the Civil War: the southern states that seceded were geographically isolated from the northern states and not one of those states gave their electoral votes to Lincoln. The south seceded for the same basic reason the original 13 colonies broke from England: taxation without representation. The Declaration of Independence argues that when a government ceases to represent its constituents the people are entitled to break their ties with the government. To say, "we believe in the union but not your right to break from the union, should the government stop representing your states" is hypocritical b/c of how the union was founded in the first place. It's our revisionist history that admires Lincoln. Looking at the facts, he was a dishonorable man who had the most dishonorable presidency.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    7. Re:Let's see if I got this straight by benhattman · · Score: 1

      I was going to reply with some snarky comment that you must be from the South, when something else hit me. Isn't it more than a little ironic that the South, the part of the country that literally fought a war against the first GOP president is also the place where the GOP is most celebrated?

  23. Re:Totally avoidable. by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

    The laws are written by lobbyists, it doesnt matter what party is in power.

  24. correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stem cell research != stem cell research

    It's a very small and unsucessful subset of stem cell research.

  25. Re:Totally avoidable. by Garridan · · Score: 0

    Just because our new president is black doesn't mean that he's any different from George Bush. That's racism, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

  26. I'm amazed by Grapplebeam · · Score: 2

    We've stayed far ahead in Science at all for the past fifty years. Capitalism really isn't the best way to build the future.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree.
    1. Re:I'm amazed by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So by your own admissions it works, but you still say it doesn't work.

      The evidence you present is that it does, in fact, work.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I'm amazed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... yes it is. The problem is: you don't have capitalism in the usa, you have socialism.
      Case: Hong Kong vs Cuba.

  27. sour grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This from a company with 24 published patent applications and 6 issued patents, most of which naming the guy quoted in the article as an inventor.

    If you can't beat em...join em i guess

    1. Re:sour grapes by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Did you RTFA? The author says they have to file patents or risk being locked out of selling/working on their own technology by someone else patenting it out from under them.

  28. Wha? Patent system abuse detected by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

    wasn't the patent system created so that researchers would build upon existing knowledge? It was the answer to the problem of guild trade secrets not allowing progress in the field.
    I.e I should be able to do research and patent the results, while having the patent as an "upgrade" to another patent. This is the most pure result of patents working exactly the opposite as they were intended - stifling research and innovation.

    1. Re:Wha? Patent system abuse detected by geekoid · · Score: 1

      except thats not what's happening.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  29. Re:Totally avoidable. by rallen911 · · Score: 2

    There was no ban on research. There was a ban on Government funding the research.

  30. What? How can this be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? How can this be? We have a system, designed to put as much money and property into the smallest number of very rich hands as possible, and somehow it stifles innovation and progress? Surely you must be joking! Scientific research blocked by patents? Engineering and design blocked by patents? Literature, art, perhaps even societal change blocked by patents? Surely not! Well we can't change it even if its true, the rich and powerful would not let the government allow the governments change it! We must all suffer under the control of a very small, very rich few.

  31. Patents for Flawed Concepts, Cool by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    By accident, I RTFA; it's Friday, I blame myself. So, if I have a patent for some type of therapy that has yet to be proven; then everyone owes me money. But if my patent causes harm to someone then I am not to blame? Cool. But something smells like fish 3 days in the sun. I don't see a cure for "...paralysis, blindness and diabetes...", using anything; from my viewpoint, there is no valid claim. If business is pleading with the government about regulations, lets start with dissolving the patent office.

  32. Predicted This by b4upoo · · Score: 0

    It was obvious during the Bush era that America would suffer a terrible and permanent economic harm by restricting stem cell research. Many researchers moved to england and Europe and patents will keep us from reaping in a mega fortune from the products certain to flow in what we be a huge stem cell industry. Wanting to restrict stem cell research and treason were locked at the hip. money and national security go hand in hand and the narrow minded right wing stopped research and left America out in the cold. These right wing types are the very reason that post birth abortions need to take place.

  33. Perfect example by gmuslera · · Score: 0

    of a government supporting condemning innocent people to death for lobyist profits. And we are not talking this time about people of a far away country in the middle east, but eventually someone close to you.

  34. Ha Ha... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Ha Ha!

  35. A ban is different from a refusal to fund by timothy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't plan to pay you (anyone reading this) to establish a church on Mars. You may think it's a good idea, but I have objections.

    However, please don't interpret this as a ban on your doing so.

    If you do, you are dum.

    Thanks,

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:A ban is different from a refusal to fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are dum

      LOL!

    2. Re:A ban is different from a refusal to fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do, you are dum

      I think this illustrates the quality of /. editing quite nicely.

  36. James Boyle, expert on The Public Domain by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://james-boyle.com/ http://www.thepublicdomain.org/
    "Chapter 7: The Enclosure of Science and Technology: Two Case Studies"
    http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/162
    "Think of the reaction of the synthetic biologists at MIT. They feared that the basic building blocks of their new discipline could be locked up, slowing the progress of science and research by inserting intellectual property rights at the wrong point in the research cycle. To solve the problem they were led seriously to consider claiming copyright over the products of synthetic biology -- to fight overly broad patent rights with a privately constructed copyright commons, to ride the process of legal expansion and turn it to their own ends. As I pointed out earlier, I think the tactic would not fare well in this particular case. But it is an example of a new move in the debate over intellectual property, a new tactic: the attempt to create a privately constructed commons where the public domain created by the state does not give you the freedom that you believe creativity needs in order to thrive. It is to that tactic, and the distributed creativity that it enables, that I will turn to now."

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  37. some research is exempt from patent rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA doesn't give the full story. To fully address whether patents are impeding biotech research, the article probably should have addressed the statutes and cases exempting some forms of research from patent rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption. The exemptions are arguably too narrow, but to not address them suggests the authors are not well enough informed to warrant a slashdot post.

  38. Wait...there's a government ban? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Oh wait....that's right. There IS NO BAN....NO SPOON NEITHER...

    There is only a ban on using Federal funds (ie: American taxpayer money) on fetal stem cell research. Which has yet to show any results that supersede what we've been able to achieve with adult stem cells. And given another decade or so will likely be a moot point.

  39. Discovery vs. Invention vs. Creation by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Discoveries should never be patentable.
    Consider them "naturally occurring prior art" if you like. They're already well and truly the "public domain". When you discover something, then although the dicovery might be new, what you have dicovered is not. It always was there for anyone and everyone to use. To suddenly claim that from now on, only you're allowed to use it and nobody else, is absurd.
    Note: There's nothing to stop you from keeping it secret until you've worked out a way to capitalise on it.

    Inventions could perhaps be patentable, for a time
    Have you invented some clever new way of doing something? Someone else could invent the same thing anytime, completely independently from you. A patent should give you enough time to get your business up and running so you have a head start on your competition. Though, is that fair to the other inventor? And preventing the use of an excellent invention stymies other creations.
    Personally, I prefer no patents, as it's much harder for an individual to get a patent than it is for large organisations.
    Note: There's nothing to stop you from keeping it secret until you've worked out a way to capitalise on it.

    Creations should be copyrightable
    Have you created some form of artwork? Your brainchild, your creation, your baby, yours. But if you want to popularise your creation, then consider that DRM and copyright laws are there to control (ie. limit) popularisation, so using them may not always be the best option.

    In short, there ought to be no patents, especially regarding discoveries.

  40. Ill just shake my head...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While US companies are raping each other with this Patent bs, the rest of the world will go on with creating new vaccines to assist the world. Dont worry guys, we've got this covered for you.

  41. This is just so much HOGWASH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >other universities or companies have secured exclusive rights

    And Who gave them these rights some little shirt lifter , the sooner the whole world get rid of this crap the sooner we can get on with doing something for humanity what a bunch of degraded tossers .

    It is time ALL universities got back to EDUCATION and stopped trying to be BUSINESSES if they need to become a business to raise funds then there is a fundemental flaw in the entire system

  42. Re:Totally avoidable. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Hahaha, sadly, you're right...

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  43. For the last time! by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

    I'm doing this from memory, in a rush, so feel free to correct:

    Saying that "it just wasn't funded by government" is actually less accurate than saying "it was banned". Doing embryonic stem cell research (outside of certain preexisting lines) meant that an organization was banned from almost all government funding, even for completely unrelated matters - and the Supreme Court has found that kind of thing to be a punishment. So the research was banned in every relevant sense, it's just that the punishment wasn't a fine or imprisonment but rather ineligibility for funding. And this leaves somewhat dishonest people just enough wiggle room to say that it wasn't really a ban.

  44. There are NO BANS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only BANS on this type of research is the usage of my tax paying dollars to be given away to worthless academic loffers. If only college students had an eduction...