Slashdot Mirror
Ruling Upholds Gene Patent In Cancer Test
diewlasing writes with a report in the New York Times which begins: "In a closely watched case, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday that genes can be patented, overturning a lower court decision that had shocked the biotechnology industry." Techdirt has some insightful commentary on the ruling.
Clearly, patents and copyrights are keeping humanity back from development and prosperity.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The reasoning being something like this: "If there is money to be made of it then of course it should be patentable".
After the ruling the judge was seen leaving the scene in a limousine filled with naked ladies leased by Myriad.
If isolating part of a molecule makes it "markedly different", then doing the reverse and, say, sticking pirated software inside a Zip archive makes something "markedly different" and thus completely legal to share.
Someone has patented aspirin and ibuprofen. The 2 most common over the counter pain killers.
After that hospitals are sued over a patent on health care procedure.
That's just before all car sales have to be stopped because someone has patented the gas tank lid.
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
So if someone wants to emigrate from a country being held back by monopolists, which country do you recommend and how should one qualify for legal immigration?
I want to patent the gene that makes people want to be a lawyer.
Summary: The appeals court believes that when isolating individual genes, it somehow makes them "unnatural" to the point where they are patentable. Because, at this point, they're no longer "found in nature" (in the form of isolated genes), they're now patentable.
Mike Masnick seems to have the right idea here and notes the following.
Basically, they seem to be arguing that because a severed finger is not attached to a hand, the finger is not naturally occurring, and, thus, is patentable. Think about that. The dissenting judge in this ruling used a slightly less gruesome analogy, saying that the majority was basically saying that while a tree occurs in nature, snapping a leaf off the tree makes that leaf patentable.
And, of course, the opinion of the dissenting judge points this out too and how Myriad hasn't "invented" the gene so this is idiotic.
Me, I gotta agree with that. The technique for isolating specific genes, as the dissenting judge also notes, is probably really difficult and should be patentable. No problem there. But saying something you've *created* with that technique is patentable is complete and utter nonsense. It would be like saying, by processing gold ore (which is the natural form of gold) into refined gold, you now own a patent on all refined gold. (Note that this was also the judge's example and I"m just trying to translate it to something simpler.)
Myriad is claiming the genes themselves, which appear in nature on the chromosomes of living human beings. The only material change made to those genes from their natural state is the change that is necessarily incidental to the extraction of the genes from the environment in which they are found in nature. While the process of extraction is no doubt difficult, and may itself be patentable, the isolated genes are not materially different from the native genes. In this respect, the genes are analogous to the “new mineral discovered in the earth,” or the “new plant found in the wild” that the Supreme Court referred to in Chakrabarty. It may be very difficult to extract the newly found mineral or to find, extract, and propagate the newly discovered plant. But that does not make those naturally occurring items the products of invention.
Now, if they'd done *something* to the gene to make it better, to make it so that it's inherently different from "natural" genes or at least that they altered it without prior knowledge of other similar genes, I'd give them a pass. But isolating a specific part of a gene and patenting it as if it were something they invented? Hideous.
I thought only inventions could be patented, not discoveries? Does the judge need a dictionary?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
So, suppose my wife & I procreate (I know, it's /., so it's unlikely on many levels, but bear with me for a minute), and through combination and/or mutation, our offspring happens to wind up with one of the "patented" genes. Can said child be sued, and can the court issue an injunction against continued production or use of said "patented" gene by the child? If not - and I would say that the entire idea is ludicrous - then they really can't be patented. With a patent, they're supposed to be able to prevent you from even making your own "thing", not just from selling it. From Wikipedia: "The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission." This is part of why you can't patent natural things. It makes no sense to do so - you can't exercise the rights over nature!
Americans, It's time to bring out your boxes, in sequence. (the sequence that start with soap boxes)
I can see a time when a disease is cured thru gene therapy at which time our own ability to donate blood is banned in the same way Monsanto bans the distribution of their genetically modified crops.
I can no longer sit back and allow Corporate infiltration, Corporate indoctrination, Corporate subversion and the international Corporate conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
I remember, couple years ago reading about the case where one of the Stanford (I think) researches created website to share with other academia his findings in DNA. Soon he found himself in a lot of trouble with BioTech companies. Case went to court........... and I remember reading that "common sense won". Academia was happy !
Now, I open slashdot and see that "common sense lost" once again.
So what happened now ?
Thanks !
That's like patenting a mathematical formula, or an algorithm, or software,... oh wait, we're talking about the USA.
That I completely agree and that ripping a DVD onto my hard drive constitutes creating that is not the same as the original movie. The actual information contained in the frames of video is completely irrelevant as it is isolated from the optical media at that point. I should be able to patent/copyright DVD rips, then distribute them according to my license,
run the show. All pro-Business, all the time. It won't even matter if it goes to Supreme Court.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The judge's reasoning in the ruling hinges on the fact that the BRCA1/2 genes do not appear in nature as isolated, unmodified DNA and instead only appear in DNA form as part of a (much) larger chromosome. While technically true, it ignores an important fact of genomics: while the BRCA genes do not appear in vivo as isolated _DNA_, the do appear as isolated _RNA_. The RNA counterpart of the DNA sequence is slightly modified - it is the 'reverse-complement' of the DNA with the T's replaced with U's (for example, AACC - (reverse complement) -> GGTT - (sub U for T) -> GGUU.
So, in a very perverse way, the judge is correct. The isolated, unmodified DNA does not appear in nature.
There is natural mechanism for converting RNA back into DNA called reverse transcription (RT). RT-based methods are how we sequence genes. RNA from genes is isolated and converted back into DNA for sequencing. This is a standard lab method and used for all gene sequencing. (interestingly, if someone were to find RT at work in a cell converting BRCA genes back to DNA, the patent could be invalidated.)
The gene itself, in RNA form, appears isolated in nature. The RNA sequence cannot be patented. But, sequencing methods all rely on converting RNA back to DNA for sequencing. The sequence is read as DNA. But, that's not really the gene, that's just a modified representation of the gene. The functioning gene is the RNA version, not the DNA copy of it.
What's frustrating is that Myriad is using a technical aspect of how gene/RNA sequencing works to claim a patent on a gene itself.
-Chris
one would no doubt spur a revolution where ordinary people wake up and call bullshit on the lawyers and courts. one would seemingly cure cancer of the body and cancer of society in one fell swoop.
Doctor: I regret to inform you that you have inoperable cancer.
You: fufufufufuf!!!!!!ck
Doctor: And the bad news is....
You: ????
Doctor: You are now willfully infringing on MegaDeathPharm exclusive cancer patent.
You: !!!!
Doctor: A lawyer with a kitchen knife will now extract one of your kidneys for the pre settlement bond.
Next!
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
Since the courts are insane beyond recall there is only one option left. Congress needs to pass a law. Throw the creationists a bone to get them on board. Mandate the Patent Office to assume the design of every existing natural creature was patented by God with the issue date in 4000BC. And to stop the next step direct the Library of Congress to assume He filed a copyright on the full genome of every creature on the same date. Then direct them to assume any gene sequence derived from a naturally occurring creature is a derived work so that only the new material is eligible for a new copyright if it is different enough and separate enough from the original work.
Democrat delenda est
Granted, aspirin is pretty much the only drug on the market which can be compacted into tablets without needing excipients (lactose, starch, etc) but it's still not Timmy's First Science Project. "Infuse it into their own tablets"? Do you have any idea how expensive tabletting machines are, or what's actually involved in tabletting? It's not as though this is something that could be done by ordinary people in their homes. And given that 75mg aspirin tablets have a UK Drug Tariff price of 79p for 28 tablets (ie, the NHS will not pay more than 79p, or about $1.30), the drug companies probably aren't making much of a profit.
Then again, this is Slashdot. People enjoy spreading FUD about pharmacy when they know nothing about it.
You should collect all of your rantings together and release them as a book.
I'd buy it for the lulz. :D
The other twin had to pay royalties for life.
If he didn't want to pay, then he is a freetard.
Why is he against innovation?
He should be sued by the other twin whose innovative genius is proven by the very fact that he holds a patent.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
so, the bastardry in america reached such a level that, something that has been inside of me, or my father, or his grand grandfather, or his grand grand grand father, can be 'patented' and therefore 'owned' by a son of whore in america ?
well. get a load of that.
Read radical news here
Pretty simple. I mean unless you're immune to cancer and don't like anyone else on the planet.
Twinstiq, game news
If this goes anything like Monsanto, when the patented genes end up being transferred via procreation the derived works will belong to the patent holder. If you're a huge pharmaceutical corporate behemoth, this is great way to farm organ transplants on the cheap.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I have decided to patent blood. Since obviously, once it is separated from the body it is now something not found in nature. I, like Myriad, am not going to invent any new techniques to identify the isolated substance. Nor will I invent any new techniques to extract the substance. But, once I extract the blood, I can patent the method and use of an energy and oxygen delivery agent with built in defense and anti-leak technologies. And I will extract my pound of flesh from anyone that infringes on my patent.
And then I will patent that pound of flesh...
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
By me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems. The text for the presentation is here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/media/FiveInterwovenEconomies.pdf "
I've been wondering if I should include attention and reputation in there too?
So, there are alternatives to the exchange economy. Also"
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article6928744.ece
"Former teacher Heidemarie Schwermer has lived without money in Germany for 13 years. Our writer finds out how she does it."
Think also about did people live before money existed?
http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html
But back then not all land was "privatized" and hoarded and rented for money... So people could hunt and gather.
Note also that "money", like fiat dollars, is essentially imaginary.
"The Mythology of Wealth"
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
http://drfuhrman.com/ http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/
Fasting can help some too.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I agree, and more: http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science
"The problems I've discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. (Marcia Angell)"
And: "Useless Studies, Real Harm"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/opinion/useless-pharmaceutical-studies-real-harm.html
On alternatives:
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"That post was made by Montgomery Scott when they came for the whales."
Either that or it was made by someone in many other cultures and many other times, before "the market" was enshrined as "God"; the following is by a Harvard theologian: ..."
"The Market as God: Living in the new dispensation"
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/03/the-market-as-god/6397/
"A few years ago a friend advised me that if I wanted to know what was going on in the real world, I should read the business pages. Although my lifelong interest has been in the study of religion, I am always willing to expand my horizons; so I took the advice, vaguely fearful that I would have to cope with a new and baffling vocabulary. Instead I was surprised to discover that most of the concepts I ran across were quite familiar.
Expecting a terra incognita, I found myself instead in the land of deja vu. The lexicon of The Wall Street Journal and the business sections of Time and Newsweek turned out to bear a striking resemblance to Genesis, the Epistle to the Romans, and Saint Augustine's City of God. Behind descriptions of market reforms, monetary policy, and the convolutions of the Dow, I gradually made out the pieces of a grand narrative about the inner meaning of human history, why things had gone wrong, and how to put them right. Theologians call these myths of origin, legends of the fall, and doctrines of sin and redemption. But here they were again, and in only thin disguise: chronicles about the creation of wealth, the seductive temptations of statism, captivity to faceless economic cycles, and, ultimately, salvation through the advent of free markets, with a small dose of ascetic belt tightening along the way, especially for the East Asian economies.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"The question is: will all this lead to an era of unprecedented splendor, or of poverty? I'd say it depends on how fast we can wean ourselfs off of our ideological commitment to capitalism and turn to some form of socialism (technically, a post-scarcity society)."
Yes -- Marshall Brain says much the same in "Manna". And Iain Banks says "Money is a sign of poverty." Bob Black writes about this too.
http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
Please see my other post in this thread or my site for my related comments on these trends: http://www.pdfernhout.net/
Or just my sig below.
Essentially, I feel a big issue is for us to get our socioeconomic house in order before we create so many weapons and competitive processes with all this advanced technology that we accidentally do ourseves in with it. We need to make the social transition first, because our path out of any singularities may have a lot to do with our trajectory going into them. But it is tricky, because better technology makes it easier to solve some social disputes by having a bigger pie. I like James P. Hogan's 1982 "Voyage From Yesyeryear" novel that explores these themes.
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
When the laws governing patents were first written, the world was a slower place. Now a novel technology can be implemented in days to months, rather than half a decade. Also the market is much bigger, meaning a higher return. I suggest that the life of patent and copyright laws should be reduced. A few drug companies will bitch, but maybe the drug testing procedures need review.
somebody patents the heart? I mean hey you take a heart out of a person, bam, that's patentable. They don't come that way naturally! You'll never just find a heart, sitting around outside a body. Patentable.
http://drfuhrman.com/ http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/
Fasting can help some too.
Lots of deep breathing of clean air won't hurt either.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
The motivation would be to make the identification of the gene(s) and then continue the research to find treatment(s) or cure(s) based on the DNA information. They can definitely patent the treatment. Allowing patenting the DNA is akin to allowing patenting the heart in people instead of patenting heart medications. That would be absurd.