Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Troll Going After Alzheimer's Researchers

Posted by Soulskill on from the king-of-trolls dept.

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from Nature News: "The website of the Alzheimer's Institute of America (AIA) doesn't reveal much about the organization, but portrays it as committed to supporting research and patients. Among people who study Alzheimer's disease, however, the AIA, based in St Louis, Missouri, is best known for filing lawsuits against companies and researchers — a practice that scientists say could hamper the progress of research into combating the dreaded disease."

4 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Poetic justice by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can somebody equip an Alzheimer's patient with a few Uzi's, send him into these guys office, and tell him the office is full of Nazi's? He can claim he is not responsible for his actions due to his Alzheimer's, and these bastards can get the justice they so richly deserve.

    I joined an Alzheimer's support group, but I keep forgetting to go to the meetings...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  2. What shouldn't be patentable by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The suit concerns an AIA patent on a human DNA sequence used in mouse models of Alzheimer's disease.

    This.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  3. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is good. The trolls are (stupidly) getting into areas people really care about (rather than software innovation) and the backlash could be very useful in driving change.

  4. Patent on human genes ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why any form of patent on naturally occurring genes is complete and utter bullshit.

    Is AIA also suing the Swedish family in which they found this mutation? Because, they're clearly infringing on the patent.

    There is no way that it makes sense to be able to patent parts of someone else's DNA. This doesn't do anything to "further innovation" or any of the things people say patents are for ... it lets some idiot patent something he found (not created), sell it to a 3rd party, and then that 3rd party prevents other people from using it for research. DNA is a "fact" not an "invention".

    In this case, I'd like to know which takes precedence .. the NIH requirement to share the mice, or this absurd "patent".

    This is just so wrong.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.