Slashdot Mirror
Australian Federal Court Rules For Patent Over Breast Cancer Gene
Bulldust writes "The Federal Court in Australia has ruled in favor of U.S. biotechnology company Myriad Genetics, enabling them to continue to hold the patent over the so-called breast cancer gene BRCA1. The same patent is also being reconsidered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the current session. From the article: 'Federal court Justice John Nicholas has ruled that a private company can continue to hold a patent over the so-called breast cancer gene BRCA1, in a decision that has devastated cancer victims.The decision is the first in Australia to rule on whether isolated genes can be patented, and will set a precedent in favor of commercial ownership of genetic material.'"
what's the problem? instead of the research staying a trade secret, it's monopolised for 20 years and then in the public domain?
this is devastating for cancer victims?
sheesh.
So the patent constitutes of the position of the sequence and the information at that position? Another thing why i think the patent system is broken.
This is another example of where the patenting system (around the World it seems) has just gone completely stupid. A gene is a naturally occuring entity and should not be patentable. Patents are there to give right of ownership of a novel idea, concept or mechanism, not things that already exist in nature. Have I got to patent myself now to stop anybody else from 'owning' me?
Smivs on the intertubes!
Patents give an exclusive monopoly on the patented material. What exactly does a patent on a human genetic sequence give you? Does this mean that anyone with that sequence in their genome has violated the patent?
Perhaps its my ignorance of genetic medicine, but the only way I can see this 'invention' being useful is in developing a test for predisposition to breast cancer. Does this mean no-one else is allowed to test for that genetic sequence?
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
If you read the ruling this Justice is out of line and is not upholding the law, but creating it.
In response to an argument that this is a discovery and not an invention he actually states that if society does not provide financial incentive, companies wont be incentivised to perform genome research.
So basically he has extended the concept of a patent to include discoveries in addition to inventions because he has a personal belief that because it takes lots of money to discover a particular gene, the discoverer should therefore have a monopoly on it.
It is not his role to extend or create laws, it is his role to enforce the law as written, and no law has been passed stating that we as a nation consider a discovery worthy of a patent.
{O,o}
+1 Insightful, Informative
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
That's it! I'm patenting oxidane. That's better than Brawndo anyway.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
kill that judge and the CEO of the company who holds the patent. Keep killing these faggots.
If the company owns our genes, shouldn't they be held responsible then they go wrong?
so now cancer sufferers are willfuly producing cancer genes, in violation of patent law.
stop it! or fines/imprisonment may result.
Tribe of amazons patents Y chromosome and demands immediate seizure and destruction of all infringing articles worldwide.
Those that are associated with turning the genetic genome into a proprietary standard are motivated by nothing more than profit, they're responsible for facilitating the continued suffering of human kind. They should expect and slow and painful death just like the deaths they'll be inflicting on millions of other people. The open-source and bio-hacker community should find common-ground on this issue and do everything humanly possible to avert such a scenario, for these parasites will drain the little humanity that's left within us if we let them patent our own software. Everything should be secondary to this issue, this is what we're made of, by controlling the human source code, you effectively control the human population, and why even play this shitty game we call "real life" if we're not even in control?
Die little people, die! MUAHAHHAHAHAHAHH! Seriously, fuck the courts. Fuck them.
I have always wondered how can they patent gene? After all they only stubled on something nature had develop. Maybe i should patent oxygen and star demanding licensing fees for everyone that breeds air ;)
Or did they develop new type of breast cancer gene newer seen before anywhere? And how do theyknow it works, expecting volantier test subjects to be hard ro find...
There is only one person who owns my genes: me.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Just go read the old code in the repositories. I'm not kidding. Genes belong to our species.
So, your parent can sue you for copying half of their genes ? :P
American judges, at least in Texas, are dirt cheap.
Patents exist to "protect" inventions. Whether or not that's still a valid aspiration is irrelevant here, as the subject matter of the patent was not an invention.
Somebody needs to teach the Federal Court the difference between discoveries (like this one) and inventions...
cause that's where the interest of BRCA1 lies ...
I'll assume these 'judges' are mere idiots. The only other alternative would be bribe-takers. Karma now demands the Breast Cancer Fairy visit their families.
The patent is about the method of diagnosis of a certain genetic condition using the mentioned gene. Couldn't find the reference yet, only Wikipedia.
-- --
Can they then be sued for some kind of war crimes (biological warfare)?
There seem to be a large number of people already infected...
financially, morally, &c. for the care of _everyone_ who has the gene. Not just health care, feeding, housing, clothing, educating --- _everything_.
If they're not willing to step up to the plate and be financially responsible for their property, it's abandoned and no longer theirs.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Um... I'm new here, so that's it for now.
SInce BRCA is "owned" by the company, make them responsible for the damage/death it causes.
Umm, isn't the cancer itself prior art? Anyone who developed the BRCA1 mutation could claim to have created it previously.
Looks like the federal court has lost it's hold on reality. This amounts to genetic slavery. Surely humans each own there own substance or am I miss reading history.
This flies in the face of everything I understood about patents previously. Can someone in the know explain what's going on here?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Wanna stop patenting genes and genetic material? Want to strike a blow at corporate greed?
Start shooting CEO's, judges and lawyers. :-)
Is to patent diseases and viruses as soon as they are discovered, so that you can be the sole "shop" working on the cure. We FOUND super aids, so it's not fair that our potential profits from curing this disease should go to anyone but us.
This ruling sets a president for that, and I think we will start seeing that within a few years.
A company has spent a fortune isolating a gene and identifying what the implications of mutations in that gene are.
That is a good and useful thing, right? We would like to encourage that.
Now then, how do we reward the company for their work?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
You can patent the process to isolate it only.
Does it mean that people who get cancer can now sue the company and ask for damages ?
of Johnny Mnemonic? I say its time for Anonymous to do something legitimate.
In case no one else recognizes what is wrong with this:
1. Profiting from the misery of others. (Obvious and immoral)
2. Patenting doom.
I guess #2 needs more explanation. Suppose someone creates a genetic mutation which is somehow not only inheritable, but communicable. (Say, through some sort of virus or something) Now, they can be the first to discover it and patent it as well. Then, if a cure is found by anyone, the creators can then seek to profit from it.
Less bad scenario: Another genetic anomaly which is triggered by some weird thing I'm not going to bother imagining just now. Suddenly, global exposure enabled this anomaly to be realized and, let's say, an explosion in autism results. Someone isolates that and makes a windfall from the patent while researchers are still trying to cure the problem or even the isolate the cause/trigger.
Now that I think of it, #1 and #2 are pretty much the same thing. But I'm not going to re-write this. But #2 does say that someone can create the malady for which they have gained a patent. It's not unlike the hell caused by the likes of Monsanto right? So it's not a huge stretch of the imagination here -- we're already seeing similar things.
I thought it was already well established that to have a patent, you have to have created something. They didn't create this... as far as we know right? So it [should] goes without saying that patenting things that occur in nature and math shouldn't happen.
Period.
Patents are for inventions.
Not discoveries of pre-existing materials. Those are just that, discoveries.
F'ing stupid judge-tards!
CEO Your appointment to FEMA should be finalized within the week. I've already discussed the matter with the Senator.
MANAGER I take it he was agreeable?
CEO He didn't really have a choice.
MANAGER Has he been infected?
CEO Oh yes, most certainly. When I mentioned that we could put him on the priority list for the vaccine, he was so willing it was almost pathetic.
MANAGER This cancer -- the rioting is intensifying to the point where we may not be able to contain it.
CEO Why contain it? Let it spill over into the schools and churches, let the bodies pile up in the streets. In the end, they'll beg us to save them.
MANAGER I've received reports of armed attacks on shipments. There's not enough vaccine to go around, and the underclasses are starting to get desperate.
CEO Of course they're desperate. They can smell their death, and the sound they'll make rattling their cage will serve as a warning to the rest.
MANAGER Mmm. I hope you're not underestimating the problem. The others may not go as quietly as you think -- intelligence indicates they're behind the problems in Paris.
CEO A bunch of pretentious old men playing at running the world. But the world left them behind long ago. We are the future.
CEO We've had to endure much, you and I, but soon there will be order again, a new age. Aquinas spoke of the mythical City on the Hill. Soon that city will be a reality, and we will be crowned its kings. Or better than kings. Gods.
May I?
Anyone know how we can fight this?
Granted I'm in the US, but I imagine there are quite a few people down under that are seething at this judgement. Since SCOTUS has a case in front of them that concerns something very similar, what can the layman do to voice their concern? Does ACLU, EFF, or some other 'public protector' have any sway on the case?
I, like many other people here, can see the overall direction gene and health patents are heading, and it's clearly a cause for concern. I'd just really like to know what exactly I, and other like-minded folk, can do to bring about some rationalization to the patent problem?
I think the gov should invoke eminent domain and seize the patent, because it is for the good of the people.
Don't get cancer, they will sue you for patent infringement. Have blue eyes? You must pay royalties.
Land of the fees, home of the oppressed.
Its perhaps worth noting that "capitalism" is a term created by socialists as a label for a particular economic system, and was chosen specifically because of the fact that the labelled system favored the capital-holding class.
So, its kind of funny to see people being surprised that capitalism favors capital, since the fact that it does that is why it is called "capitalism", rather than "happy equal fairness-ism".
I would have to laugh if breast cancer victims SUED the patent holder for the damage their patented gene had done to them. If you own it, it must be your responsibility, RIGHT MONSANTO?
My BRCA status was just one of 1 million SNPs I got from my 23&me test, which cost around $100.
How can Myriad's patent hold when I can get the raw data and then connect the data with scientific research?
Australia is a social engineering facility, and has been so since the British first used it as a giant penal 'colony'. Unknown to most of you is the fact that the British government set up special 'prisons' where Humans could be experimented upon far away from the moral activists found within Britain at the time. The worst monsters in Human history were given full reign to carry out the most depraved programs- and many of these were psychological.
Centuries later, and Australia may no longer be a giant prison facility, but it is still used to incubate social engineering policies that can then be exported to 'proper' nations. New Zealand may be a land of sheep, but Australia is THE land of sheeple, brain-dead racists who are told daily they are 'the man'. A high standard of living is used as a substitute for grown-up freedoms. Most of Australia is off limits to its own populace. There is good reason why the continent has a tiny population still, and recently the ONLY population growth allowed has been from mass Asian immigration.
The continent could trivially have become another USA. Your masters did not want this, so they did not permit it.
The visible politicians 'elected' by the sheeple of Australia are probably the most corrupt on the planet. After all, their purpose is to carry out the needs of those that REALLY control the continent, and keep the mugs that live there happy and undemanding. Like all colonies, the place suffers from Victorian censorship and prudery (although the age of the Internet is gradually eroding this).
With Australians, the social engineering goal is COMPLIANCE. Complaince in all things, with the sheeple actually BELIEVING that they actually want the compliance by choice. It is no coincidence that one of the main exports from Australia has been Mass Media Barons. These sheeple actually feed on propaganda. No Australian, for instance, would ever believe that "slip, slap, slop" was just another experiment is social control and compliance via centralised media control.
So, an Australian court (actually the direct will of the UK government) granting 'validity' to a patent claiming ownership of an evolved part of the Human body expresses NO legal position at all. It merely expresses the desires of your masters- masters that DO NOT fear the people in Australia, but certainly have fears about the people in the USA and UK. Team Obama knows it is winning, but knows its enemies are far from dead.
The worst aspect of this whole 'gene patent' think is that Obama and his puppet masters STATE they have a right to inflict massive military destruction on nations that refuse to 'respect' the rights of those that hold such patents. Filthy old Obama will hold up the Australian decision as 'proof' that his position is right.
Welcome, citizen
http://www.kashat.net/welcome.html
they have a patent on a method of finding the gene and its mutations, if i remember correctly.
Now, i'm just as opposed to method patents as I am to regular patents, especially if it's one of those overbroad ones that says something like "anyone in the world who creates any possible device or method to finding the gene is violating our IP. we own the 'idea' of finding this gene"
BUt, they don't have a patent on a gene. (sure, you might say, what's the difference. not much, i guess)
In addition, I bet SCOTUS will knock them down a peg or two. they may get to keep their method, but they won't get to keep the overbroad 'idea' behind it. SCOTUS has been writing some blistering patent opinions in the last few years, mostly to the good.
Funny story.. kept on reading assuming I would eventually run into the fine print...ye know that little jem which says this is really about some clever method to detect a complex of genetic code not the code itself... such text never materialized.
Was it ommitted or have things actually devolved to the point where we are seriously now yabbin about direct attempts at patenting gods handiwork just cause someone discovered what it does?
if the gene responsible for regulating breast cancer fails, can the owning company be held responsible for a faulty product?
I think the patent is the isolated (from its natural state) gene sequence. This article on the US court case, linked from the one you provided, has more details on the patent and the arguments for/against:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics
I can't help but wonder what our world would be like if our current patent system was in place when man discovered things like gravity, fire, magnetism and electricity. I'm sure there are some good arguments for getting a patent on any and all use of those phenomena.
Does this mean anyone who has breast cancer has to pay these people a royalty?
I think I'll patent breathing.
Here's a copy of the actual patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US5747282
It would seem that this only gives them the rights to use the gene for cancer related purposes. For example: If the gene were to have other properties which linked it to weight loss then the gene could be used by others for that purpose. However, upon further reading of the patent they are literally patenting the full DNA sequence of the gene!
'Claims
1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.
2. The isolated DNA of claim 1, wherein said DNA has the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1.'
This is the same patenting a coconut for the purposes of growing a palm tree.