You Don't 'Own' Your Own Genes

olePigeon (Wik) writes "Cornell University's New York based Weill Cornell Medical College issued a press release today regarding an unsettling trend in the U.S. patent system: Humans don't "own" their own genes, the cellular chemicals that define who they are and what diseases for which they might be at risk. Through more than 40,000 patents on DNA molecules, companies have essentially claimed the entire human genome for profit, report Dr. Christopher E. Mason of Weill Cornell Medical College, and the study's co-author, Dr. Jeffrey Rosenfeld, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey and a member of the High Performance and Research Computing Group, who analyzed the patents on human DNA. Their study, published March 25 in the journal Genome Medicine, raises an alarm about the loss of individual 'genomic liberty.'"

Comments

In that case

[Anonymous Coward]

Some random company doesn't own them either. This is good day for liberty.

Re:In that case

[crutchy]

Michael Crichton had been talking about gene patents for years

read his book titled "Next"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_(novel)

Re:In that case

[TapeCutter]

Let me guess the plot - Science gone mad?

Re:In that case

[Anonymous Coward]

Not this time.

This time it's Science gone crazy

Re:In that case

[slick7]

Let me guess the plot - Science gone mad?

Here's the real lowdown, YOU are owned, the banksters say so, big pharma says so, the Queen's barristers say so, and now, the g-dless scientists say so. All that is needed is for organized religion to throw us back into a time where the dark ages would be like a walk through Disneyland.

Re:In that case

[MickLinux]

All that's needed is for you to wake up and realize that when organized religion (Christianity, anyhow) says that you don't own yourself, but have had your freedom bought at a very high price, but now belong to Christ -- and therefore are not free to do as you wish, but need to bring it all to God in prayer... they actually are giving you true freedom.

Whereas when others say, "no, you'refre. To sell/destroy/ harm yourself, let me help you", they are enslaving and destroying you for their own profit.

Ä-- cept for the fact that the dark ages were far better than this so-called enlightened era of mass murder, human trafficking, torture-that-is-not-torture, unlimited power for the powerful without responsibility (corporatism)...

i'd argue with your post.

As it is, I agree with it 100%.
  As long as it happens not by organized religion, but by the hand of God Himself (the task is too great for religion), that is all we need.

Re:In that case

[The Master Control P]

Except for the fact that the dark ages were far better than this so-called enlightened era of mass murder, human trafficking, torture-that-is-not-torture, unlimited power for the powerful without responsibility (corporatism)...

Trying to cover just how much wrong you stuffed into that single sentence would be a task akin to cleaning the Agean Stables. That you say such a thing while you sit on your well-fed ass, in your warm home, taking access to all the 100% clean and safe water and food you could ever want for granted, wearing machine-woven cloth, sitting in front of a machine so incredible it would've been literally indistinguishable from magic 100 years ago (let alone 1000), leads to one of two conclusions:

Either you are a spoiled whinging twit posessed of an ignorance of history as stunning as your lack of perspective, or you are so stupid it's amazing that you remember how to breathe.

Re:In that case

[TapeCutter]

For arguments sake, lets say I accept you parinoid rant as a facimile of the truth, WTF has it got to do with my post?

Re:In that case

[tofarr]

Or it is blatant trolling

Re:In that case

[slick7]

For arguments sake, lets say I accept you parinoid rant as a facimile of the truth, WTF has it got to do with my post?

The only people who own your genes are your heredity lineage, all others are nothing more than claim jumpers. Plenty of grief comes from those that claim G-d is on my side. Just because someone has more money, power, ability to "make things happen" doesn't necessarily mean they have a right to your DNA. As for my paranoid rant, think about the mark of the beast; everyone will have it and have it willingly. Your Iphone, android or whatever "smart" phone you hang onto dear life for, even to the pointy of going onto the internet to type where's my IPhone? These smart phones have non removable batteries so it cannot be disabled by taking the battery out. People with with these smart phones would rather text their friends rather than hanging up their phones, turning around, and talk to the person they are texting. Who owns whom?
Most people blindly accept the EULA without reading it. Who owns whom? You suck up the crap from newspapers, television, radio, Twitter OMG! WHO OWNS WHOM?

Re:In that case

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as 100% safe food or water.

People in the U.S. die and get sick regularly from both foodborn and waterborn illness.

Re:In that case

[uninformedLuddite]

I thought he was sweet

Derivative Works

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful, these guys are going to come after you for procreating next!

Think of the children! No, really.

Re:Derivative Works

[Anonymous Coward]

Just be glad they patented them and didn't copyright them! patents only last 20 years, in two decades you'll own your genome again.

Re:Derivative Works

[TemperedAlchemist]

I find it odd they could patent something they didn't invent.

Re:Derivative Works

[daremonai]

So no one can have children until they turn 20? Clever way to end teen pregnancy.

Re:Derivative Works

[omnichad]

Really, they can't. They can patent their usage by some method, such as a diagnostic test. That's just how patents work.

The headline is just a bit of sensationalism.

Re:Derivative Works

[omnichad]

No. Unless everyone was born when the last patent was granted. (And, of course, the patents covered procreation with those genes - which they don't).

Re:Derivative Works

[jythie]

Pity I am out of mod points, this is an important point that many people tend to skip over.

That isn't to say that the patenting of diagnostic tests does not represent its own potential problems, but it is very differnt then the more sensational take on the issue.

Re:Derivative Works

[Samantha Wright]

They did invent something, technically. Their patents don't come into effect unless the sequence is extracted into a short fragment of DNA and used as a diagnostic tool.

Re:Derivative Works

[TemperedAlchemist]

So they don't own the genes, they own a procedure.

Re:Derivative Works

[Ironchew]

Our immune system already enforces a "no derivatives" clause. Procreation is only possible with an elaborate workaround that keeps the immune system from noticing what's going on.

Re:Derivative Works

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto claims to have patents on genes in seed. If you happen to come up with some seed by any means with those genes in them, it's consideed infringing. So, I think your comment here is likely wrong.

Re:Derivative Works

[Entropius]

If you believe in software patents, then aren't Monsanto's patents just an extension of that? They're just sequences of code that, when compiled and run, does a particular thing...

Re:Derivative Works

[Samantha Wright]

Well, the procedure itself (diagnostic PCR) is common knowledge and widespread. They own the combination of the DNA and the procedure, and when you tally up all of the DNA involved in these kinds of patents, 41% of all (or possibly just protein-coding) genes are covered in some way. The paper gives an example of one diagnostic probe that's only 15 nt long; given that 15 nt is exactly 30 bits, that's equivalent to having exclusive rights to use a ten-digit number as a pattern in a regular expression.

Re:Derivative Works

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto doesn't patent the gene, they patent the whole organism, which they created by an artificial process. Since there is no natural or biological process by which the transgenes could get into a plant, finding their transgene is evidence that you've derived a plant from their created and patented organism.

Re:Derivative Works

[mrops]

So a DMCA takedown notice then

Re:Derivative Works

[reboot246]

Oh, but there is a natural biological process that allows those genes to get into other plants. Happens all the time if the two plants are closely related.

Re:Derivative Works

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is such "derivation" occurs by a natural process - these plants grow and produce seeds, which scatter without regard to artificial boundaries, which grow into additional plants.... No human intervention or intention is required to obtain the progeny of these plants, indeed, they may be regarded as pollution of otherwise "Organic" crops.

Re:Derivative Works

[reboot246]

Appears that sometimes the plants don't have to be related at all.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontalGeneTransfer.php

"Genetic engineering creates vast arrays of transgenic DNA that could spread, not only through cross-pollination with the same or related species, but also through the direct uptake of the transgenic DNA by cells of unrelated species, a process called horizontal gene transfer."

Re:Derivative Works

[belthize]

Careful, these guys are going to come after you for procreating next!

Now worries there. After watching things like Jersey Shore, the US Senate and most television shows it's pretty clear we're still amateurs.

Re:Derivative Works

[belthize]

And at least some of us are completely incapable of proofreading prior to hitting submit.

Re:Derivative Works

[ChromeAeonium]

That's something we already know. It's how humans got viral genes, how cows got snake genes, how a sea slug got algae genes, and how a pea aphid got fungal genes, among other known examples. It's pretty rare unless you're giving things an evolutionary time frame, and has little to do with genetic engineering, either in terms of scientific or patent related concerns.

Re:Derivative Works

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe in software patents [...]

Damnit, I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque. I seem to have found Bizarro Slashdot.

Re:Derivative Works

[Anonymous Coward]

Their creations are made by simply taking genes that already exist in other organisms and splicing them into another sequence. They haven't created any new genes. At most they should be able to patent the mechanical and chemical processes they use to find, cut, and splice them but not the derivative product.

Re:Derivative Works

[TFAFalcon]

Except that most software does not spread itself and automatically replace the software you normally use. It's more like virus writers suing you copyright infringement when your computer gets infected by their 'products'.

Re:Derivative Works

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe in software patents, then aren't Monsanto's patents just an extension of that? They're just sequences of code that, when compiled and run, does a particular thing...

no.

Re:Derivative Works

[sonamchauhan]

Yeah, sure.

And for 20 years, grateful Neanderthals left choice carcasses by the cave of the one who figured partridge soup helped the a'choos.

They were happy the inventor of this diagnostic test and theraputic method was licensing his discovery on an FRAND basis.

Re:Derivative Works

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto doesn't patent the gene, they patent the whole organism, which they created by an artificial process. Since there is no natural or biological process by which the transgenes could get into a plant, finding their transgene is evidence that you've derived a plant from their created and patented organism.

Ha, the plants do it themselves. If they create a living organism they sure as hell can't blame someone from "deriving" it. Or if they do, they should also pay every people on whose property such plants are found for destroying the original flora with their mutant creations.

Re:Derivative Works

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's pretty rare unless you're giving things an evolutionary time frame"

It's really not that rare, but I suspect it depends on the magnitude of the difference of species in question to some extent, but more importantly to interaction between species.

For example, it's something I've managed to reproduce myself a couple of times between plants, not just of a different species, but of a different genus through grafting. Normally grafting two plants together just results in a scion leeching nutrients required for growth from a stock such that the scion grows at the stock's expense. Sometimes you end up with a chimera, whereby cells of the stock and scion become mixed, and you end up with a chimera-hybrid (which isn't genuinely a hybrid), but every now and then, just once in a while, you end up with a genuine chimera-hybrid that is stable, from which HGT has occurred.

This isn't just between two distinct species of the same genus, but between two species of differing genus. At this level it's rare for sure, but certainly not rare on an evolutionary time frame. Of course, in reality plants tend not to graft themselves onto each other in the natural world, but I disagree with your later point that it's got little to do with genetic engineering and patent related stuff as I could quite trivially acquire a patent for such stable hybrids. I don't because frankly a) it's only a hobby, and b) the hybrids are ugly and not worth my time patenting anyway.

I understand though that some rather profitable commercial plants have been produced precisely through doing this sort of thing.

Re:Derivative Works

[sursurrus]

Also their patents run out after 20 years which means these genes (really the patented uses as mentioned above) will forever be in the public domain. Sci-fi envisions the possibility that ordinary people will one day have the capability to do cheap gene-engineering on their own, so I think this is a public good. The analogy being today's level of genetic engineering technology is like the vacuum tube computers the size of a room, but one day people will be able to build or buy a much more powerful system for ~$2000.

Re:Derivative Works

[sursurrus]

Technically a patent is a negative right, or right to exclude others. The 'exclusive right' is a very common misconception, eg a patent on a new pharmaceutical doesn't give you the positive right to use it (even on yourself) until it is FDA approved. So practically speaking the patent holder holds the right to prevent others from using the probe sequence, which is great except they have a pretty serious enforcement problem - they might be able to prevent companies from selling that particular probe sequence commercially (if eg it appears in a catalogue), but they have very little recourse if a researcher builds the probe and uses it in-house.

Re:Derivative Works

[Samantha Wright]

Then I'm kinda wondering why this lawsuit involves so many people. Surely if it's only a commercial restriction, "researchers, genetic counselors, women patients, cancer survivors, breast cancer and women's health groups, and scientific associations representing 150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals" would not all have gotten involved? I mean, I understand (and personally espouse) the principle of the matter, but I get the feeling that this encompasses in-house manufacture of the probe for diagnostic use (i.e. profit) as well.

Re:Derivative Works

[sursurrus]

I was pointing out a practical consequence, not a legal one. IE it would technically be illegal for all those people to violate the patent by say doing the BRCA1 screening test, BUT it would be very difficult (in my opinion) for the patent holder to discover this form of patent violation unless it was being done on a large, commercial scale. After skimming the decisions (well summarized on Wikipedia, of all places), Myriad no longer has "method claims directed to “comparing” or “analyzing” DNA sequences" within the scope of its patent (Fed. Circ via remand from Sup. Ct. in light of Prometheus decision). As the last paragraph of the wikipedia article suggests, this restriction in Myriad, when read with Bilski and Prometheus, suggests that 'diagnostic test' claims, are unpatentable! I personally think there's been a lot of hysteria over what it means to patent a human gene. The reason everyone is so upset is of course, if things were taken to an extreme, then we'd have these negative consequences everyone is worried about. The Sup Ct.'s remand and grant of 2nd writ to the Fed.Circ. suggest they think the Fed. Circ got it wrong (in that it is a procedurally unusual step, I can explain more fully if anyone is really interested in Fed.Circ - Sup Ct tension). The two issues remaining are: #1 can you even patent isolated DNA sequences at all and #2 can you patent cancer drug assays relating to a given sequence? As far as #2, from my rusty cancer-drug assay knowledge, I believe the issue is the chemical interaction of potential drugs with the target gene sequence as a way of fighting the cancer, which is a step up from simply comparing gene sequences, I rate the odds of the Supreme Court striking this one at 50-50. Re: #1, this follows a very old case that examined what exactly is manmade and patentable vs a natural product and unpatentable. In that case, adrenaline (or some other hormone) was extracted and deemed nonpatentable BUT purified adrenaline had enough manmade invention to be considered patentable. I think the Supreme Court is leaning towards (I'd give 80% odds) considering isolated DNA sequences nonpatentable, which would be a pretty landmark patent decision. My best guess - they view isolated DNA as something that exists as part of a larger whole and is extracted or cut out vs the Fed Circ which puts a lot of weight in the fact that isolated DNA sequences (at least in Eurkaryotes) don't exist in nature on their own.

Re:Derivative Works

[Samantha Wright]

The hysteria is mostly the media's. I get the impression that the biologists who are upset about this are more concerned with the principle of the thing, regardless of what the patent terms actually say, simply because the sequences involved are extracted from a natural source without innovative modification, so I guess that means they'd side with the Supreme Court on this one. Also, some digging suggests that the adrenaline case you mentioned was actually a bit of a screw-up, and that case only succeeded because the applicant was able to (eventually) convince the patent examiner that his product was chemically distinct from the natural hormone, which may or not actually have been true depending on how primitive his chemical extraction techniques were.

Re:Derivative Works

[sursurrus]

Yes, there is remarkably little outrage on patentlyO and other blogs about this case, a good indicator that patent people aren't too worried about it =) You're exactly right, the adrenaline case is sort of an outer bound and Myriad is a great opportunity to rein it in. I predict a war of silly molecular biology analogies in the Sup Ct: are restriction enzymes like 'molecular scissors snipping out piece of DNA' or are they 'complicated and innovative human constructs that chemically react with the DNA molecule'

Re:Derivative Works

[Samantha Wright]

My personal favourite is "the mitochondrion is the powerhouse of the cell." I was told that a lot in high school, but since none of us owned yachts, the analogy never made sense. Some day I'm going to find myself explaining to someone that a powerhouse is the boating equivalent of a mitochondrion. I just know it.

...although if restriction enzymes were truly complicated and innovative human constructs, they probably wouldn't be named things like EcoRI ( Escherichia coli Restriction Enzyme 1), so that's going to be a bit of a barrier to outright fabrication once an expert takes the stand.

Re:Derivative Works

[sursurrus]

Haha. I think I thought of it in spaceship terms (my teacher might have said 'engine room') and didn't question. The cell-boat analogy is pretty good, they're both self contained, floating, prone to piracy... ok I'll stop. Never really thought of it before, but it seems much of Mol Bio is just 'borrowing' natural tools to do things. Anyways, it strikes me that the Biology Q&A journal might be a good idea, I'd be willing to contribute, might be a great way to come up with more silly but relevant analogies. I am always looking for ways to explain genetics to people who are kind of afraid of science, and we could even file Amicus Briefs Unlikely to be Actually Read by Anyone! Woot!

Re:Derivative Works

[sjames]

Yes, but it would be a bit like suing you for patent infringement after your PC gets infected by the virus they released containing the patented algorithm.

Re:Derivative Works

[sjames]

Alas, no. In many cases they take the trait to be evidence of the transgene and the transgene to be evidence of infringement.

After a heap of lawsuits, we NOW know that the roundup ready trait in canola can not only transfer to other strains of canola, it can transfer to closely related weeds. Then, a grad student succeeded in breeding a roundup ready food plant without using any transgene techniques. Then, to cap it off, there are now wild weeds that have evolved roundup resistance somehow. In other words, NONE of their claims are true.

All taken together, their claims for roundup readiness should be dead, but like the copyright trolls, they keep threatening and suing.

Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[mblase]

...but fortunately, I have complete legal ownership due to the grandfather clause.

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[Powys]

Who do I owe for the use of my genes? My cells are using copys of said genes all the time (hopefully there is no copyright restriction as wekk since I've not paid anyone for the right to copy these genes).

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[maxwell demon]

That only covers half of your genetic material because there's no grandmother clause.

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[omnichad]

Theoretically, though nearly impossible, they could have genes passed 100% from two grandfathers. Of course, their mother would have to be identical/clone of their grandfather and expressing as female due to some externally-caused developmental quirk.

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[sconeu]

On the other hand, OP may in fact *BE* a grandfather.

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[Ryyuajnin]

Perhaps population control will be enforced through copyright?

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's not theoretically possible without scientific intervention, since XY females are sterile.

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[BitZtream]

No, its not possible, not even in theory.

It would theoretically be possible to be all female DNA, but it can not ever be all male DNA.

Your sex is not controlled by some 'developmental quirk'. Your sex is determined by the sperm that fertilizes your egg.

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[omnichad]

"All Male" means having XY. Don't see how that can't happen. But someone can be XY and still develop into a childbearing female through hormonal therapy.

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

Granted, this might require a slight genetic quirk and so not 100% identical. But maybe the appropriate genes could be turned off by chemical injection if someone really wanted to make this happen.

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[spleendamage]

My grandfather was Jackson Pollock, so I own 25% of my genes due to prior art.

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[jewens]

Does not require anything other than luck. You get 50% of your genome from your father, that 50% just happens to be the 50% he got from his father (Y included) and you get 50% from your mother, that just happens to be the 50% she got from her father (his X chromosome included) and voila a grandchild with no genetic relationship (mitichodrial DNA excluded) to either of his grandmothers. 23 pairs of chromosomes gives 2^23*2^23=7.03687E+13 Dividing by approx 7 billion people currently alive gives a ~0.0095% chance that there is someone alive right now that fits this possibility.

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[omnichad]

Oh right - I forgot that Y could come from the father and X from the mother. Don't know how I could have missed that. I must have been way more tired than I thought when I wrote it. At least the first part I wrote made sense.

Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes...

[tragedy]

Actually it is, since XY females are usually, but not always, sterile.

Same old

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically corporations have yet another carte blanche to sue whoever they want for whatever reason.

Re:Same old

[interval1066]

Basically corporations have yet another carte blanche to sue whoever they want for whatever reason.

Well, "basically" (the superfluous "basically" make the user look like an idiot by the way) anyone can sue for any reason whatsoever, and they do. My wife, who works for a silicon valley court system sees this all the time. The from high powered corp lawyer to the crazy cat lady living in a shopping cart. Corporations don't own lawsuits as you appear to be implying.

Re:Same old

[Sentrion]

"Basically corporations have yet another carte blanche legal basis to win a summary judgment against whoever they want for whatever reason."

There - fixed that for the OP.

Yes, anybody can sue anybody for any reason, but not everybody has a 90% chance of winning such suits case after case, often without even warranting a trial. Add this to unfounded RIAA infringment claims, traffic tickets from private companies (camera installers and operators), and medical bills from any random physician that sneaks into a patient's hospital room without their knowlegde, consent, or prior relationship to perform "services" (doctrine of implied consent).

Re:Same old

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, but at another level you cannot patent in vivo genes as these are a product of nature.

The genes covered by these patents all go through a process where they are isolated. Since the genes in your body are the result of natural processes any such patent suit would have much less than a 90% chance of success.

I read that wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Human genes have been patented before, you know.

Upcoming supreme court case

[schneidafunk]

"The U.S. Supreme Court will review genomic patent rights in an upcoming hearing on April 15. At issue is the right of a molecular diagnostic company to claim patents not only on two key breast and ovarian cancer genes — BRCA1 and BRCA2 — but also on any small sequence of code within BRCA1, including a striking patent for only 15 nucleotides. " ...

"This means if the Supreme Court upholds the current scope of the patents, no physician or researcher can study the DNA of these genes from their patients, and no diagnostic test or drug can be developed based on any of these genes without infringing a patent," says Dr. Mason.

* Personally I believe the supreme court will throw out these patents.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

The same SCOTUS which decided that cities and counties can condemn people's homes because a golf course is better use of the land?

I doubt it. I'm going to be genuinely surprised if I don't have to pay licensing fees if I have a baby in the coming years.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[the_humeister]

If they don't throw out the patents, does that mean people with the mutation who do develop cancer have standing to sue the company then since they have patents on those genes?

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[dpilot]

Let me get this straight.... If this patent is upheld, it will become illegal to pass along BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes to offspring.

We've found it - the cure to cancer!

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[pwizard2]

I have zero confidence in the SCOTUS ever since Citizens United.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[the eric conspiracy]

As the article points out 15 nucleotides is too small to be subject to patentability. Hopefully at least this much is thrown out.

I expect that at least some of this patent will be thrown out. But not all - the tests the Myriad invented using these genes are real inventions.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Attila Dimedici]

The same SCOTUS which decided that cities and counties can condemn people's homes because a golf course is better use of the land?

I doubt it. I'm going to be genuinely surprised if I don't have to pay licensing fees if I have a baby in the coming years.

Except that it is not the same SCOTUS that reached that decision. Four years ago, I would have bet that the balance of power in the SCOTUS had shifted such that it would have overturned that ruling (if someone could have come up with a case that gave them a fig leaf against "overturning precedent"). However, I am no longer sure how the balance goes on that issue. Several Justices who I thought I understood their judicial philosophy have voted the opposite of what I expected in the last couple of major, controversial decisions. In the same way, Sotomayor and Kagan have taken positions that suggest that they might be less likely to uphold the Kelo decision than their political philosophy before getting on the Court would have suggested.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

Humanity is fucking doomed- nothing has really changed for the last 50 thousand years in terms of human behavior, in terms of the ability of a relative handful of high-functioning sociopaths to grab whatever value they can at the expense of the rest of humanity.

In this and cases like it, in the short term it benefits them and their progeny, but not much farther down the road they end up in the same (sinking) boat as the rest of us as they're unable to avoid the inevitable long-term effects of diseases left untreated by research not performed.

Whether it is the prevalence of (potentially treatable) cancers that proliferate when we really could stop them in their tracks, or the lack of new antibiotics to treat increasingly resistant pathogens, this small percentage of humanity fucks -everyone else- first, then themselves later as they're unable to avoid the inevitable results of their near-sighted scrabble for short term gain.

It's amazing just how much leverage a relatively tiny group of intelligent, high-functioning sociopaths possess as they drag us all into disaster after disaster.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[thaylin]

If I remember the last time genetic tests were involved they threw it out.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to submit a patent for all sixteen permutations of GATC.
Sue everyone for infringement.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[djmurdoch]

No, the company will sue the cancer patients for illegally duplicating their invention.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it, but the SCOTUS did the only thing it could do with Citizens United: overturn a law that censored political speech.

If we want to have such a law, we need to explicitly make an amendment to the constitution, however, I don't want to think about the abuses that such an amendment could allow. I know that allowing the rich to have undue influence is bad, but is allowing the government to tell people who they can and cannot donate money to any better?

Then again, they don't allow you to donate to wikileaks it seems, so there it is.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Antipater]

But not all - the tests the Myriad invented using these genes are real inventions.

As I understood it, the tests that Myriad invented have already been deemed unpatentable by the precedent of Mayo v. Prometheus and in re Bilski. At issue is the patentability of "isolated genes", or whether the isolation of a DNA sequence outside of its chromosome makes it no longer "naturally-occuring" and thus makes it patentable.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[interkin3tic]

I'm going to be genuinely surprised if I don't have to pay licensing fees if I have a baby in the coming years.

This is slashdot: odds are we won't have to pay licensing fees no matter what they decide.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

no, the company will sue the people who get that cancer for manufactoring these patented cells.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[interkin3tic]

Short answer: no

Long answer: If you spend a lot of money then you can probably SUE them. And you'll lose that money doing so and will possibly get fined on top of that, and maybe countersued? (IANAL) The only way you would get anywhere with that tactic would be if you were able to spend far more money on lawyers than myriad or whatever the greedy group of assholes calls themselves. Legal insanity only works on behalf of the wealthy and the corporations.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[NatasRevol]

Not sure if irony:

"Humanity is fucking doomed- nothing has really changed for the last 50 thousand years in terms of human behavior"

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[ChronoFish]

Yes - they did but the conditions are different.

Property is owned by the State, Governed by the Feds, and leased to individuals(tax). This is written into the Constitution.

Fifth Amendment of Bill of Rights:

"....nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. "

"Just compensation" allows for private property to be taken for public use... You may not agree with the terms, but the law is pretty clear. Who determines what "just compensation" ? The state.

-CF

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[ChronoFish]

See Monsanto rulings...

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Charliemopps]

Except SCOTUS was entirely correct in that decision. What the constitution guarantees is not always a good thing. Had they allowed this law to limit political speech in the way that it did, you could easily see how future laws could be used against the public rather than for its best interest.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying you know more about the law than the supreme court?

Just because they voted in a way you don't approve of doesn't mean that they are wrong.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[nedlohs]

Right. The one time they ruled to restrict government power according to the constitution. That's the one that made you lose all your confidence in them.

Is it opposite day or something?

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[PopeRatzo]

The same SCOTUS which decided that cities and counties can condemn people's homes because a golf course is better use of the land?

And the same SCOTUS that has decided that the filing for an S-Corp magically creates a new person who is endowed with god-given rights to anonymously buy elections.

I don't trust them to come down on the side of flesh-and-blood persons over the corporate kind as long as that prick-with-ears Antonin Scalia sits on the court. He's the one who decided that congress passing a law unanimously is evidence that they didn't want to pass it at all. He is an evil, evil man.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[sl4shd0rk]

company will sue the cancer patients

You might by trying for cynicism, but this is just all too similar to cases already won by Monsanto

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[CanHasDIY]

Pirate Babies FTW!!!

(points at own junk) DMCA this, motherfuckers!

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[UnknownSoldier]

I think you would find many here on /. that shares your lament over how corporations behave like psychopath along with how a few sociopaths have long controlled the mainstream masses due to power/greed/lust/control but aren't you being just a _tad_ pessimistic??

Considering the fact that the western world has running water, don't have to risk life nor limb for their daily food, the majority has a relatively safe place to sleep, we can learn the past few _thousand_ years of Mathematics, Science, and Philosophy all within roughly 10-20 years, not to mention all the cool tech the average person has access to (such as the ability to communicate long distances) the human race is "overall" in a better place then it was 50,000 years ago. No?

The fundamental root problems with humanity is two-fold:

  * an archaic belief that there is never enough, and
  * fear which manifests in many forms: greed, power, control, etc.

It took how many thousands of years to ... ??

* be allowed to believe a different philosophy without getting killed (religion)
* be allowed to write a different philosophy without getting killed (censorship)
* to grow the fuck up and out-law ownership of another person (slavery)

Heck one guy said "Can't we all just get along. We can and we should." and was nailed to a tree for pointing out the flaw in human nature.

So why are you all that surprised that we have [yet] to learn the final lessons?? Namely:

  * The Basis of Civilization is built upon Sharing,
  * When we stop blaming/allowing others to control us and take personal responsibility; when we realize the truth:
          "We are our own government", and
  * "Grow the fuck up" and become civilized by not treating our fellow man/woman with less respect / honor / love that we should be treating everyone as our father / mother / brother / sister

Ultimately, humans will learn the secret ingredient:

      That the purpose of the universe is a dynamic feedback system designed to teach; namely, at the end of the day it is all about one thing:

Relationships.

--
Only cowards use censorship.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[the eric conspiracy]

Not all of the tests. Some, such as those used for screening therapies are still covered.

http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2011/08/15/machine-or-transformation-test-after-myriad-iimplications-to-the-prosecution-of-process-claims/

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[sconeu]

How about defining "Person", so that corporations are excluded?

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I thought there were 8 other justices on the Supreme Court, but every bad decision apparently was made by Scalia.

Thanks for filling me in, I must've missed the part where they scrapped the rest of the court and let Scalia take over as the sole arbiter of everything.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

God damn it, this meme won't die!

The Supreme Court stated this ruling derived from the rights of individuals grouping together, and that Congress had no power to censor groups. People don't lose their rights grouping, whether that grpup is the Sierra Club, a religion, the Boy Scouts, or a corporation.

It has zero to do with corporate personhood, which has to do with a quick-and-dirty way to make laws apply to corporations, i.e. a corporation can violate laws, and be fined. You could repeal all laws about creating corporations and this ruling would not be affected.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a split court. Read Stevens' dissent. I concur completely, and it's entirely grounded in solid precedent and legal reasoning.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

On the one hand, I want to roll my eyes and scream "SHUT UP YOU FUCKING PEACE AND LOVE BULLSHIT HIPPIE," at you.

On the other hand, this is probably one of the most insightful posts I've seen on Slashdot in a while.

I thank you for creating this delicious dissonance in my mind. It's not often that someone here prompts me to self-examination, which leads me to conclude that even if I find I must ultimately disagree with you, I must ALSO concede that you are both a scholar, and a gentleman.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[chiefmojorising]

It also doesn't mean they're right. How often do you see unanimity in a decision? Are some of the justices wrong or do they simply have a differing opinion?

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[meta-monkey]

Well, specifically, the tumors are duplicating the invention, which means cancer is illegal. If something is declared illegal, it is necessary to go to War On It (TM, US government), incarcerating those associated with said thing, therefore eliminating it. Ipso facto QED they just cured cancer by patenting it. God bless our patent system. *one.single.tear*

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[meta-monkey]

"Sir, ConglomeratedGenCo has issued a DMCA takedown request for your pants."

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

All infringing offspring will be withheld from college lecture halls, churches and maternal wards and summarily destroyed to protect the commercially valuable interests of the Gene Corps Unlimited.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Darinbob]

Then the company will be legally required to extract all the patent infringing cancer DNA without harming the defendant.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an official notification under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (”DMCA”). Please be advised that law requires you to remove or disable access to the infringing materials upon receiving this notice.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

The Australian High Court has just upheld them as valid. The US Supreme Court will make a ruling and we will find out what they will do.

People do own their genes, they are their tissue. What they don't own is the knowledge of the sequence their genes. The discovery of which is key step in the production of gene test for the gene, and which has been patented.

Being able to patent the gene sequence for uses will encourage investment in the development of medical technology for lots of genes. Not being able to patent it would reduce the costs of gene tests and treatments such as antisense treatments that have been developed, but may reduce new technology and treatments.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[PopeRatzo]

Wow, I thought there were 8 other justices on the Supreme Court, but every bad decision apparently was made by Scalia.

Thanks for filling me in

No problem. It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

Scalia isn't responsible for all of the bad decisions of the Court, but his fingerprints are all over the very worst ones, consistent only in their level of evil. But logically, completely inconsistent. Pro-federalism when states want to do something horrible and anti-federalist when states want to do something decent. Originalist when he believes the Founders support his belief and ignoring original text when they don't. Scalia is the model of the "activist judge" that ignores precedent when it's convenient to his ideology. A politician in a robe, and by all accounts, a bully. One of the worst justices since the Dred Scott decision.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirate Babies FTW!!!

(points at own junk) DMCA this, motherfuckers!

Quiet fool! Do you want to see them implanting "anti-copy protection" on everyone?

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Theaetetus]

"The U.S. Supreme Court will review genomic patent rights in an upcoming hearing on April 15. At issue is the right of a molecular diagnostic company to claim patents not only on two key breast and ovarian cancer genes — BRCA1 and BRCA2 — but also on any small sequence of code within BRCA1, including a striking patent for only 15 nucleotides. " ...

"This means if the Supreme Court upholds the current scope of the patents, no physician or researcher can study the DNA of these genes from their patients, and no diagnostic test or drug can be developed based on any of these genes without infringing a patent," says Dr. Mason.

* Personally I believe the supreme court will throw out these patents.

While the Supreme Court could go either way in Myriad, if upheld, it will not bar physicians or researchers from studying the DNA of these genes from their patients, nor will it bar any drugs from being developed. And while yes, many diagnostic tests will infringe the patent, (a) not all will, and (b) maybe the BRCA1 discoverers deserve some payback for the tens of millions of dollars they spent to discover that that gene was relevant, at least for the next few years until the patent expires, at which point it will be fair game for all.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[elucido]

"The U.S. Supreme Court will review genomic patent rights in an upcoming hearing on April 15. At issue is the right of a molecular diagnostic company to claim patents not only on two key breast and ovarian cancer genes — BRCA1 and BRCA2 — but also on any small sequence of code within BRCA1, including a striking patent for only 15 nucleotides. " ...

"This means if the Supreme Court upholds the current scope of the patents, no physician or researcher can study the DNA of these genes from their patients, and no diagnostic test or drug can be developed based on any of these genes without infringing a patent," says Dr. Mason.

* Personally I believe the supreme court will throw out these patents.

These laws were meant to be broken. Either break the law or move to a country with sensible patent laws.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful... you probably don't want to experience an forced take-down, followed by the dispute process to have things reattached ;-)

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, gotcha.

tl;dr - "I disagree with Scalia's interpretations and reasoning, therefore he's a big ugly scary evil boogeyman, a member of the Illuminati, and also probably abuses fuzzy, defenseless kittens."

Thanks for clearing that up. In case you haven't noticed, there are 8 other justices on the supreme court. He needs at least 4 other justices to agree with him for any legal opinion he arrives at to have any binding effect.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[kermidge]

And for you to recognize that makes you a gentleman and on your way to scholar.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[gd2shoe]

....nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Public use! Public use!

Roads, schools, bridges, freeways, military bases... not shopping malls, golf courses and housing tracts. There's been a longstanding tradition of "interpreting" "just compensation" as being pennies on the dollar (rarely fought against successfully). When the government can take stuff at the price that it dictates and "sell" it to private interests, it has become a full fledged corruption mechanism.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[thehodapp]

This just got totally meta.

Re:Upcoming supreme court case

[Ash Vince]

Let me get this straight.... If this patent is upheld, it will become illegal to pass along BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes to offspring.

We've found it - the cure to cancer!

Actually no. It just means that when you get cancer you are double screwed. You are probably going to die, and all your estate will go to whoever owns these patents in damages. If you are lucky enough to get a survivable form of cancer, then you are just made destitute by the medical bills and the patent damages.

Fight the Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Spread your DNA freely and often....

captcha: repress

Class Action Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I sue them when something goes wrong with "their" genes?

Re:Class Action Lawsuit

[darkfeline]

Someone vote this up.

C&d

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a cease and desist letter. I guess I have to move to Afghanistan or some place I'm not patented.

Theya re correct

[geekoid]

It's just a chemical. Like water.
OTOH, it's naturally occurring, so they should be able to patented either.

Patent chemical derivations? absolutely.

Re:Theya re correct

[Samantha Wright]

The fence being ridden is when short pieces of DNA are used as diagnostic tools for diseases. One example highlighted in the paper is a 15-nucleotide sequence that can be used in a PCR assay to determine the presence of a specific breast-cancer-related mutation. While the patent technically only covers this diagnostic use, the reality is that it's a natural piece of the human genome and absolutely could not stand up under scrutiny as non-obvious... In fact, if it wasn't so obvious, they'd have no one to sue, and the patent wouldn't be worth anything to them in the first place.

Re:Theya re correct

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you show any derivation hadn't/couldn't/wouldn't happen naturally? DNA isn't 'just' a chemical like water. It's a self-replicating changing chemical. Patent the methods for manipulating DNA not the results.

Re:Theya re correct

[geekoid]

really? so if I asked someone one 50 years ago what part of the DNA, if any, could be used to diagnose breast cancer probability, they would have known?

no, it is not obvious.

Re:Theya re correct

[Samantha Wright]

The "non-obvious" requirement in the context of patents specifically refers to an expert skilled in the art at the time of the discovery, so your example is irrelevant. Once the mutation was identified, it was obvious that it could be used as a diagnostic tool in this way.

To draw a computing analogy, this would be like patenting a single-use program that detects the signature of a single non-polymorphic virus, where the signature is a piece of that virus's code, and then taking out a separate patent for each signature. (Except software is not patentable without a device, so to really do that, you'd need an auto-run USB dongle that scans your system for the same thing.) It's incredibly lame, which is why researchers and clinicians get upset about it.

Re:Theya re correct

[TheTurtlesMoves]

At the time this was "invented" it was very obvious, and that is the only time that matters. The *only* thing that we didn't know without a bit of work is the 15 nucleotide sequence. And this was the result of a clinical study.

Re:Theya re correct

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are absurd.

How is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Biotechnology and pharmacutical companies have been patenting human genes for decades now. One can't even do a PCR using primers based on a patented human genomic sequence if it's for a potentially commercial purpose. Needless to say which country "pioneered" this trend.

New breed of patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering a human may not own his own genes, the raw data that defines their human body's construction, how long before someone receives a letter from a patent troll stating that they must pay a licencing fee if they wish to continue using their genes?

Re:New breed of patent troll

[Antipater]

If you don't like patents, you're free to create your own version of the human genome. Stop trying to regulate the market, you commie!

Re:New breed of patent troll

[dpilot]

This is all fine humor and all. But I remember reading a science fiction story about a person who resembled a well-known movie star. That person was sent a "cease and desist", in essence told to get plastic surgery to quit looking the way he was born to. That's the first paragraph or two, the meat of the story was his response. Since I read the story decades ago, I've forgotten the rest, and only remembered the premise.

Re:New breed of patent troll

[chuckugly]

Bonus points for using "meat of the story".

Re:New breed of patent troll

[CanHasDIY]

Considering a human may not own his own genes, the raw data that defines their human body's construction, how long before everyone receives a letter from a patent troll stating that they must pay a licencing fee if they wish to continue using their genes?

FTFY.

I sincerely hope they actually try to pull some shit like that.

Prior Art

[dunkindave]

Don't each of those genes have prior art? In what way have these companies created a new and innovative device?

Re:Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior art can only be claimed if the discovery was published in a official publications, or know by the general population.

Re:Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

"Prior art can only be claimed if the discovery was published in a official publications, or know by the general population."

That has also changed. Priority goes to the first to file for the patent, not the first discoverer/inventor/author of scientific paper and this will open up a load of prior art.

Re:Prior Art

[thereitis]

So if I get my DNA sequenced and it matches their so-called patent, I can sue for damages. I'll just bide my time until it's worthwhile to do so.

Good

[PPH]

If this is the case, Merck can send a cease and desist letter to that woman who copied my genome without permission and is now seeking child support payments.

Re:Good

[geekoid]

You where raped? Or perhaps there was some sort of permission involved.

Re:Good

[gstoddart]

If this is the case, Merck can send a cease and desist letter to that woman who copied my genome without permission and is now seeking child support payments.

Well, since it's actually a derivative work of both your genomes, this is classed as a collaborative effort.

Unless you were engaged in a limited liability partnership, you can be sued for liability issues arising from the partnership.

I'd suggest consulting a lawyer if you didn't have any contracts drawn up in advance ... you may have unwittingly entered into a partnership which doesn't shield you from liability, and it sounds like it's too late to withdraw without consequences. ;-)

Re:Good

[leonardluen]

Apparently his DRM was faulty

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That would make for a very interesting argument - she can't claim payments for structures owned by other companies...I say go for it for no other reason than to showcase the stupidity of patenting something that clearly has a lot of prior art

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

He freely gave her a license to use his genome for personal recreational purposes, but not to study or disassemble it. She has made a copy and actually uploaded it to the world.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

> Or perhaps there was some sort of permission involved.

Perhaps he offered her a non-renewable non-transferable one-week licence? Or stipulated that the material or any part thereof may not be copied, and not be disassembled except as part of its destruction...

Re:Good

[thaylin]

.. you may have unwittingly entered into a partnership which doesn't shield you from liability, and it sounds like it's too late to withdraw without consequences. ;-)

Oh oh, to late to pull out.

Re:Good

[wierd_w]

Nono, this is about license violation.

See, he provided his "intellectual property" with the limited terms that it would not be used to produce any derivative works whatsoever, and was provided as is, non transferable, and only for the specific activity specified, under the binding verbally contractual agreement that no such unauthorized reproduction or derivative works would be made, and that if it occured out of negligence on her part to control her own reproductive equipment, the onus of any burden would be entirely hers.

Her attempt at seeking support payments constitutes willful breach of contractual obligations, and she is seeking financial remedies she is not entitled to! Client seeks a restraining order, and official immunity from further illegal remuneration attempts via the court!

(Gawd I feel so dirty! Is this what being a lawyer feels like? Gawd I'm glad I didn't study law... as usual, IANAL, etc.)

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a few different ways this can go:
1) Sex as consent depends on "implied consent", a made-up concept to justify spousal rape. Consent can only be explicit, so the man should actually say he wants children.
2) If a woman has the right to abort, then the actual choice to keep the fetus is hers, and no one should be held responsible for someone else's choices.
3) She can feasibly (although not cheaply) get your DNA and have your child without you ever having sex with her.

Re:Good

[NatasRevol]

So, Apache or GPL license is finally a life or death argument!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Sex as consent depends on "implied consent", a made-up concept to justify spousal rape.

Warning, unnuanced feminist talk detected !Implied consent is not made up, let me explain the difference between implicit consent and spousal rape: In the morning I frequently my dick between her ass cheeks and grab her boobs, if she says: no not this morning I am still tired, and I stop, I did not commit rape since there is an implicit consent between me and my wife. Instead, if someone chooses to continue and put his hand on his wife mouth, he is probably committing spousal rape. Only probably because some people are into SM role-playing....

Re:Good

[PPH]

She violated the TOU when she broke the shrink wrap.

Re:Good

[CanHasDIY]

If this is the case, Merck can send a cease and desist letter to that woman who copied my genome without permission and is now seeking child support payments.

Well, since it's actually a derivative work of both your genomes, this is classed as a collaborative effort.

Unless you were engaged in a limited liability partnership, you can be sued for liability issues arising from the partnership.

I'd suggest consulting a lawyer if you didn't have any contracts drawn up in advance ... you may have unwittingly entered into a partnership which doesn't shield you from liability, and it sounds like it's too late to withdraw without consequences. ;-)

Funny commentary?

Or ominous vision of the future?

Re:Good

[the biologist]

I did not commit rape since there is an implicit consent between me and my wife

Actually in the scenario you just described, there is not consent between you and your wife. You wanted sex and she said, "No." This is not "implicit consent" or "consent" in any form, but rather an "explicit rejection". "Consent" refers to agreement.

In a sense, you did "consent" to the notion that your wife is not your property to do with as you will and that you are not a rapist. However, this is not context in which the word is generally used.

Re:Good

[gstoddart]

Informative? Damn, I was going for funny ... I'm pretty sure an LLP can't shield you from a paternity suit. ;-)

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

where != were

As in:
Who, what, when, where, why?

As opposed to:
Is, are, was, were, will be.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to put your dick into a random women ass cheeks and stop when she says no, if you do not get into jail there is only a limited set of possibilities: you were in a swingers club, that women fear taking you into court, the police/judge/jurry is corrupted, you have an awesome layer, you are extremely rich, for some reason that women wanted sex with a stranger... See, implied consent exist, or without it I you be going to jail...

Oh boy......

[Ol Olsoc]

So are we going to see cease and desist orders from these companies because we are infringing on their patents when we take a shit?

Re:Oh boy......

[Anonymous Coward]

That won't be a problem. Just send them the turd as compensation.

Re:Oh boy......

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, across the world, millions of people are taking a shit for free, without having paid even one cent for the right to do so. Cutting-edge corporations that have invested millions of dollars in biotechnology patents are going bankrupt because of shit-piracy, costing society thousands of jobs. We need to take a tougher stance on patent infringement if we are to bring an end to this horror!

Re:Oh boy......

[DasSquid]

No, because remember, it's only Copyright Infringement if you upload the data. By only downloading your data via your pooTorrent, you should be fine.

Re:Oh boy......

[Ol Olsoc]

So then, I could claim prior fart?

Re:I don't mind

[thaylin]

Really? They own the entire thing, and estimates put the total number of cells in the human body between 10-100 TRILLION..

Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[Jane Q. Public]

How did all these patents get issued, when legally in the U.S., patents cannot be issued for products of nature?

Somebody is massively and badly f*cking up, somewhere.

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[the eric conspiracy]

Because the patents cover isolated, amplified genes which are not products of nature.

Every material object in the sidereal universe is a 'product of nature'. The question is whether or not it was modified by man when the issue of patentability comes up.

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[leonardluen]

Arguably all human genes are modified by man, especially those in a human

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[thaylin]

Genes amplified by a product of nature, therefore are products of nature.

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[the eric conspiracy]

That would be an argument that would give you an F in patent law 101.

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[CanHasDIY]

That would be an argument that would give you an F in patent law 101.

That's a painfully sad way to look at the situation...

I suppose, now, there's no point in majoring in Biochemistry, unless you're planning on a minor in Patent Law...

Fuck.

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[DMUTPeregrine]

Well, the argument is that the isolated genes are a product of a human-developed process, not products of nature, and are different from the non-isolated genes. So that makes the products of the (patents expired) process patentable.

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[Theaetetus]

How did all these patents get issued, when legally in the U.S., patents cannot be issued for products of nature?

The isolated genes do not exist in nature, and never have. "Products of nature" is not read so broadly as to include any combination of hydrogen, carbon, or other elements, regardless of what isolation or manipulation you perform on them, or no machine would ever be patentable either, by definition.

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[Jane Q. Public]

"Well, the argument is that the isolated genes are a product of a human-developed process, not products of nature, and are different from the non-isolated genes. So that makes the products of the (patents expired) process patentable."

But it's a bullshit argument. I could use exactly the same reasoning to argue that if I pull a wild rose bush out of the ground, it's not a product of nature either.

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[Jane Q. Public]

"The isolated genes do not exist in nature, and never have."

I would not be so sure. They got there in the first place somehow... we know that in some cases it was via mutation, in other cases genes were inserted by viruses, etc.

As I pointed out above, I could use the same argument to say that if I pull a rose bush out of the ground it isn't a "product of nature" either. After all, rose bushes do not normally exist without topsoil.

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[DMUTPeregrine]

Of course it's bullshit. That's never stopped a lawyer before, why should it stop them now?

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[Theaetetus]

"The isolated genes do not exist in nature, and never have."

I would not be so sure. They got there in the first place somehow... we know that in some cases it was via mutation, in other cases genes were inserted by viruses, etc. As I pointed out above, I could use the same argument to say that if I pull a rose bush out of the ground it isn't a "product of nature" either. After all, rose bushes do not normally exist without topsoil.

That would be an apt analogy if, typically, the rose bush disintegrated as soon as you pulled it from the ground, and you had to take extreme measures to stabilize it.

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[Jane Q. Public]

"That would be an apt analogy if, typically, the rose bush disintegrated as soon as you pulled it from the ground, and you had to take extreme measures to stabilize it."

Since it does, in fact, start dying (which is effectively the same as disintegrating) as soon as you pull it out of the ground, then I would say the analogy holds.

Extreme high-tech measures, like highly artificial hydroponics, would be needed to keep it alive without its soil.

Re:Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Man is a product of nature, therefore anything man creates/modifies is also a product of nature.

But I do own it

[Anonymous Coward]

First because I'm not in the US. Secondly, if you disagree with me, meet my fists and my shotgun, jackass.

Re:But I do own it

[Anonymous Coward]

First because I'm not in the US. Secondly, if you disagree with me, meet my fists and my shotgun, jackass.

Your country allows you to own a shotgun?

Re:But I do own it

[Anonymous Coward]

First because I'm not in the US. Secondly, if you disagree with me, meet my fists and my shotgun, jackass.

Your country allows you to own a shotgun?

Yeap, and assault rifles as well. Furthermore, our tea party indisputable won some time ago.
Welcome to Uganda, the new home of the free and land of the brave.

Prior Art!!

[AntEater]

I claim prior art! Well, my parents could, at least.

Copyright my own genes?

[hawguy]

Can I send a cheek-swab to the US Copyright office and copyright my own genes?

Re:Copyright my own genes?

[TheFakeMcCoy]

I sent a different sample.... they didn't accept it >

Re:Copyright my own genes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haploid cells only contain half of your DNA.
Can't really blame them for rejecting copyright on half of a complete work.

Re:Copyright my own genes?

[the eric conspiracy]

So long as you send the form and $65, why not.

Re:Copyright my own genes?

[the biologist]

It just won't all be found in a single cell, but I think he was planning on sending more than one.

Re: Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

My genes are copyrighted not patented, silly.

sue

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you get sick with cancer, just sue the company that is the owner of the gene. Tell the courts they own the patent and you never asked for there products to be put into you. Make clear you only want those mutated cancer cells removed that they own.. Free cancer treatment.

Patenting molecules?

[DoILookAmused]

I thought molecules couldn't be patented, only the process of obtaining them could.

Re:Patenting molecules?

[the biologist]

This is generally the notion when talking about chemistry, but apparently biology is something entirely separate from chemistry.

In that case:

[Hartree]

"Humans don't "own" their own genes"

Can we repossess them from Soulskill and Cowboy Neal? :)

Re:I don't mind

[Anonymous Coward]

so you are saying this will make RIAA lawsuits look reasonable in comparison.

If Protein Synthesis is Outlawed...

[tutufan]

...only outlaws will synthesize their own proteins.

Re:If Protein Synthesis is Outlawed...

[lister king of smeg]

Wasn't that the problem with jimhadar on st ds9 they had to have ketrisell white but the founders removed thier genes that produced it so they would be dependent one them for it

/. dead on this subject?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gallows humor without insightful commentary....YAY!!!

Here is a way to fix this

[rgriff59]

Find a company which "owns" a gene that controls some specific disease, like a cancer. Now, everyone with that disease files a lawsuit against the patent holder. They own it, they should be liable for the damages it is causing by being released into the general population. By claiming a patent, this implies invention, therefore we can infer liability!

After a few multi-million dollar lawsuit awards, no one would want to "own" a gene. Problem solved.

Re:Here is a way to fix this

[thaylin]

Until they figure out what gene makes people look nice, or gives big breasts, everyone one want those.

Re:Here is a way to fix this

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the company sends a lawsuit back to everyone for their patent infringement. Those people weren't authorized to have those genes.

Re:Here is a way to fix this

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget one major factor in that argument: Laws are for the little people. They don't apply to the upper caste.

Re:Here is a way to fix this

[meta-monkey]

I already have a gene that makes me look at nice, big breasts.

Re:Here is a way to fix this

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot. This gets +5 insightful? Wantonly confusing patents and product liability claims. Slashdot I weep for thee.

Re:Here is a way to fix this

[Theaetetus]

Find a company which "owns" a gene that controls some specific disease, like a cancer. Now, everyone with that disease files a lawsuit against the patent holder. They own it, they should be liable for the damages it is causing by being released into the general population. By claiming a patent, this implies invention, therefore we can infer liability!

After a few multi-million dollar lawsuit awards, no one would want to "own" a gene. Problem solved.

... unless the company says "I have no idea what you, some Slashdot submitter, or a journalist with some crappy liberal arts degree and no science education since 8th grade is talking about. Of course we don't 'own' the gene that's in your body, and you'd have to be a complete idiot to think we did, or even think we thought we did. What we own is a specific isolated gene, one that couldn't possibly exist in a human. Are you human? Then GTFO. Oh, and here's a bill for your frivolous lawsuit attempting to sue us for damages for something we never owned nor claimed to own."

Re:Here is a way to fix this

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, nope. I look awesome, but i'm still going to sue the company that owns the gene unless they can take the gene out of me. If I want to look like a horror show, who are you to judge?

This is discovery of fact

[erroneus]

How in the world this is even eligible for being patented escapes me. I know. This is the same rant that has been repeated over and over again here. Patents should be for inventions or things that people have created.

If I do a whole bunch of research and learn things that other people haven't learned about the sun, can I patent the bloody thing? How is patenting genes any different?

Re:This is discovery of fact

[MightyMartian]

It's because we aren't advocating the immediate disbarment of about 75% of the lawyers in North America. If I had my way, there would be a random lottery that would cull three quarters right now, and would maintain that ratio to the rest of the population for the rest of time.

Re:This is discovery of fact

[Krau Ming]

yeah it's like patenting the sun because you figured out how to make solar panels.

The Gene Genie

[pierreboulez]

...lives on his back. The Gene Genie loves chimney stacks.

USA ONLY

[Anonymous Coward]

funny and you can keep you dumb laws....

Here's another shocker...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't "own" your house either. You rent it from the government.

Re:I don't mind

[thaylin]

Very reasonable.

Well, you DO own your own genes.

[Anonymous Coward]

but not your gene PATTERN.

I guess it's time to the world...

[Anonymous Coward]

to complete ignore U$A patent system... oh wait... we already do... nvm...

We really need a Constitutional Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL
But I would thin it should read:

1) A person automatically owns an irrevocable copy right on their own genome. A copy right that can NEVER by ANY MEANS be taken from them. Explicitly including due process of law. Also the copyright passes to the persons estate when they die.

(We need to prevent the state from some sort of legal fiction and legally killing someone to get their genes.)

2) That although tissue samples can be taken with court order for criminal investigations, those samples cannot be used for any other purpose but said investigations.

What do you guys think ?

Next

[grenadeh]

Hello? Michael Crichton touched on this in Next, years ago. Was he completely right? Yes.

Genes... computer code?

[Kingkaid]

I don't understand why everyone is all hyped up over genes like this. Genes are basically the cell's subroutines or code. I know countless questionable patents that have been made for software - why should genes be any different?

Prior art...

[Anonymous Coward]

...my mother's clacker.

Seriously, guys, you are FUCKED. Sort it out before we liberate you, OK?

The Theft Of My Heritage Is Piracy And Slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

As I have emphatically stated before, here and elsewhere :

No one can own my genes, just as no-one can own my hand, my fingers, or any other characteristic derived from physical infrastructure or life experience. To propose the contrary is to defend slavery, indentured bonding, and the theft of self, history, and personality.

All my Ancestors, and - along the way - a considerable number of other parents, friends, associates, allies, tribe members, and the odd complete stranger or casual acquaintance, strove to select and pass on the genes and abstract (and concrete) cultural artifacts to their descendanyts. They did it as their ultiate legacy, and a manifestation of their will to their own perpetiuation.

Any attempt to steal or deny that is an intolerable wrong to individuality, history, heritage, and identity. It is a fundamentally flawed claim and consequently null and unenforceable in principle.

Trespassers will be anihilliated.

Re:The Theft Of My Heritage Is Piracy And Slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

My apologies for the typo's. And, they're mine, too. Copyleft. Not copyright. etc.

Hmmm, yes.

[lasermike026]

Fuck off! My genes belong to me. Our genes belong to humanity. The corporations own nothing. The law and the corporations are becoming less relevant daily.

Re:Hmmm, yes.

[geekoid]

And what do you base that on? do you have a logical argument?

See you in Texas!

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess all of us will get subpoenaed to the Eastern District of Texas so we can get sued for patent infringement?

Much ado about nothing.

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Unless there is program to clone me and then take over my life, I really don't care who owns my "genes". I am sure there are people shaking with rage hearing about this, but get over it, its a non-issue for 99.9999% of the population. People just like to fight for something without caring about what its about other then "the injustice of it all".

Lastly, God owns our genes, so there.

Re:I don't mind

[Bengie]

RIAA tried to sue Limewire for $75 trillion in damages. It's almost the same as $100 trillion. I don't see how it's more reasonable. http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_owes_75_trillion_in_damages.html

Billions and Billions of Class Action Suits

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see. Millions of people sueing gene patenters for partial identity theft. Times each gene patented or otherwise claimed. Hm.

Might as well try to patent the names, techniques, and end result associated with - say - chapatis. Appelation Controlee? Or a variation on that?

So this is how slavery returns to America

[big_e_1977]

The act of conception produces a baby that is considered to be unlicensed derivative work of companies in the biotech industry. The parents must either pay between $200 - $150,000 dollars for each infringement. If the parents cannot pay the fine, the corporations can gain legal guardianship of the child and either use the child for their own medical research purposes, or sell the child to a sweatshop and place a lien on the child's earnings for their lifetime until the debt is repaid.

Funny

[lapm]

I have always found it bit funny that they can patent a gene. Expecially when its gene that didnt even develop, nature did. Its similar to decompiling computer programs and then starting to patent parts of them that seems to do task X. After all thats what dna is, programs for cellural computer. Personally if anyone could claim any onwership of my genes, it would probably be my parents..

Re:Funny

[Sentrion]

It has come to our attention that you are making use of a dialect of English combined with a particular form of logic, while using a computer. We cannot provide more clarification due to the security requirements for protecting our trade secrets, but the method(s) you are using violates patents that we own. We demand that you immediately cease and desist from all such activity that violates our patent rights. If you would like further clarification on how you may be violating our patents we will make this information available after you have signed our non-disclosure agreement and paid a processing fee of $500.00. Failure to comply with this demand could subject you to legal action in which we will seek a judgment for substantial damages to our a patent trolling operation, plus attorney's fees, loss of potential revenue, and punitive damages.

Warmest regards,

Management of the New Corporate World Order

Try to patent this phenotype:

[Mister Liberty]

The extended middle finger.

Games

[Dancindan84]

When I saw the summary title I read it as, "You don't own your own games." I thought, "Great, THIS story again," before I noticed I read it wrong. Completely off topic, but I thought it was funny.

People then become property.

[atouk]

If a corporation owns a gene or by extension, chromsome group, then that corporation is the only one able to treat that gene or chromosone with any therapy as it's been declared off limits to other corporations. So by having a single corporation able to treat a disease or defect, the individual becomes wholly dependant on a single, for profit entity. This single entity, answerable to nobody, has effectively made you it's property, and has the ability to treat or not treat you, at whatever price it pleases.

Incentive for a cure.

[technosaurus]

Great, 30 days to remove property or pay $9999/day

To anyone claiming "ownership", those with genetic disorders should give them XX days to remove their property or pay $XXXXX/day for "storage" fees... Now that's incentive for a cure.

Re:Incentive for a cure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, SOOOOO if someone 'owns' this cancer can I sue them to cover my medical costs of it?

Ownership is a double edged sword...

Pre-existing art..

[Anonymous Coward]

*Points to* drop of blood on finger.

I have one simple message...

[Angeret]

... to any company or group that thinks it owns my genetic material.

You can patent what you like and pretend you have rights, but when it comes to me and what makes me *me* you can all fuck off. Don't like it? Tough. You can still fuck off.

I get enough bullshit about the invisible sky fairy that made everything without some overpaid prick in a lab coat trying to tell me I'm owned by some faceless twatcorp. Yes, I have strong feelings about this - how could you tell?

Re:I have one simple message...

[Xaedalus]

A god is a god, whether invisible bearded sky fairy or faceless prick in a lab coat telling you what Science has determined is good for you.

Re:I have one simple message...

[iggymanz]

the nice thing about one of those gods and their pantheon is that they are very, very mortal.

Re:I have one simple message...

[Xaedalus]

They (the scientists) may be mortal. Their materialistic belief is not.

Hey America

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you!. This is the reason why the world hates you. This is why we want you to collapse. Who else, but America would do this?

Re:Hey America

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear angry foreigner: Contrary to what your ass-backwards socio-political system has apparently taught you, Americans are not, repeat, not homogeneous drones sharing a hive-mind, and would appreciate if you either A) Recognize that fact, or B) Go fuck yourself. HARD.

Sincerely,

AN American (singular)

Re:I don't mind

[crutchy]

wow you think $75 trillion is almost $100 trillion

life must be pretty sweet if $25 trillion is considered small change

FYI, Petition

[Anonymous Coward]

I found a petition to the Whitehouse about this:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-it-illegal-patent-or-trademark-human-genome/t1mCLv8y

Re:I encoded my genome into my hosts file

[crutchy]

homosexual infatuation

Bullshit.

[mark-t]

If I don't own my own genes, then why would any other alleged owner be legally prohibited from taking them from me?

Re:Bullshit.

[meta-monkey]

This is one of the sub-plots in Michael Crichton's novel, "Next." (Hey, I needed a book to read on the airplane). While the characters are meh and preachy, the interweaving plots center around the implications of ownership of genes and biological materials. In the book, pretty much this exact thing happens, where a genetic sequence that can be used in gene therapy to treat (something, might have been cancer) is found in a man who donated tissue for research. The university then patents the gene, worth billions of dollars. The culture they had is destroyed, and they sue the man to retrieve "their property" from his bone marrow.

There were other "make ya think" plots about the ownership of genetic results, and their potential use not just in insurance and employment situations, but legal battles for, say, the custody of children in a divorce. "My ex-husband's genes predispose him to abusive behavior." Also, what about the ownership of materials after they leave your body? If you donate blood or tissue (or have it extracted or discarded in the course of medical treatment) can those be genetically profiled, and then your profile sold or used?

The Patent Office is fucked up

[Ragooman999]

Since when are you afforded a patent on something which you did not at all design or create. Just because you have the expensive instruments to measure, decode, or decipher a substance which has already been created/designed should never give you the authority to "own" that object. This is utterly a FAIL for the research establishment. And now we need the Supreme court to tell us who is the actual owner. Another FAIL for civilization.

Cell Division

[WilyCoder]

My cells divide all the time, I am therefore a walking sack of IP violations. Nice.

Re:I don't mind

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so sweet, that i wouldn't mind if my penalties were rounded from 75 trillion to even 100.

Re:I don't mind

[Sentrion]

How is it any less reasonable from Monsanto suing farmers for planting their own corn seed after it was contaminated by Monsanto engineered pollen from a neighboring farm?

And remember, RIAA relates only to copywritten material. Since gene patents would be essential to human life they would be much more valuable to each individual. Though the median income for an American family is less than $60k per year, medical costs for just one cancer patient can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. So if the chance, not the guarantee, of prolonging the life of one individual, perhaps by just a few months or maybe a couple of years, has a market value that pushes an entire family household into bankruptcy, then how should we value the genes that make life possible from craddle to grave? Factoring offspring into the equation changes everything. Since just one child can spawn an entire nation, this has to be considered when a patented gene is illegally "copied" through procreation. So again, if the market value of prolonging a life by a few months is worth as much as the lifetime earnings of a typical household, then the cost of lost revenue from unauthorized distribution of a patented gene into the gene pool could easily be worth $100 trillion, since such a figure would represent the GDP of a small nation compounded over the course of said nation's history - totally reasonable since it has already been established by sources as old as the book of Genesis that just one child can father an entire nation. In retrospect $100 trillion is a very generous settlement offer that a violator should consider carefully before going to trial.

Guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA - the land of the free - you're guilty the second you're born.

True

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans don't own their own genes. Their parents do - those genes are a collaberative creative artwork (of one level of quality or another).

Precedents for bodily fluids being incorporated in artwork would be would be 'Piss Christ' by Andres Serrano (not the most tasteful perhaps, but due to the media coverage some years ago the first one I could think of off the top of my head), or the potentially more on topic but even less tasteful 'Semen and Blood III' (surprisingly enough, when I google it I find it's by the same artist) used by metallica as the cover art for their album 'Load'.

As far as precendents for art not necessarily involving directed intent, you have to look no further than 'Blue Poles' by Jackson Pollack. If you look at that and think anything other than 'Random paint splotches', you aren't looking hard enough. But it is art, and apparently has a value in the double digit millions.

So yeah. You don't own your genes, and I don't own mine. But nor does any corporate entity.

Speak for yourself, troll....

[rts008]

Lastly, God owns our genes, so there.

Which god?

Why not purple unicorns?

Re:I don't mind

[K. S. Kyosuke]

And remember, RIAA relates only to copywritten material.

Actually, RIAA has nothing to do with copywriters.

amazing future business model!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my business plan...

1. Patent a bunch of genes
2. Create "designer baby" technology which splices mom & dad's genes together selectively to create child
3. Charge extra to remove undesired genes or insert new ones from our 'desirable' catalog
4. Sue the shit out of anyone who is still making babies the old fashioned way! Those are my genes you are illegally splicing!

The courts decided this, We the People lost

[Anonymous Coward]

The case: Moore v. Regents of the University of California
The decision: Patients do not have a right to their own body

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California
Chicago Tribune: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-02-18/features/9001140537_1_mo-cell-line-blood-cells-spleen
(The Trib article is a more human friendly version)

I also seem to recall (but cannot locate) another case in Texas where a man went in for a medical procedure, the doctor took samples of something from his body, and ended up with a patent. The patient had no knowledge this had occurred. Much later the patient had a family member in need of a transplant, he offered to donate, and the patent holder blocked him from making the donation on grounds of infringement. The family member died as a result. The courts upheld infringement over the cost of human life.

And you thought software patents were bad...

The pirate bay

[Anonymous Coward]

will have a whole new meaning

So what.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not like you're actually doing anything with your genes, let alone have the knowledge to do something with them. My genes are all full of disabilities and defects... you want to patent it, go for it.

On the other hand, what the hell are they going to do with it? I'm all for cloning sex slaves.

I hope so

[countach]

I hope they really have claimed the entire genome, because patents don't last that long, so we'll all be free again in 20 years.

Re:I don't mind

[Anonymous Coward]

The market value of anything can't be more than any one person or buying organization actually has.

At least patents expire

[ediron2]

Meh, in less than 17 years, the knowledge that X does Y will be public.

Personally, I didn't map the fuckers out so I can't really be offended that someone that HAS mapped genetic data and suffered through the research to determine what they do gets payment for it for a patent term.

For what it is worth, I suspect there will be a lot more than 40,000 (isn't that number from TFA) unique rules hiding in DNA. In other words, 20 years from now, I still expect us to be making inroads and discoveries that deserve patent. Another few decades after that, if we survive that long, we'll have similar progress with nonhuman DNA, and another wave of patents with value either because our direct or indirect benefit from them (mods to human DNA or mods to critters, in other words).

Re:At least patents expire

[the biologist]

Generally the progress will move forward faster with non-human DNA, then the lessons learned are applied to human DNA. Humans are really hard to keep contained in the lab for multi-generational studies.

Stop being rational

[gmuslera]

Manage to patent an irrational number and then sue everyone because math shows that everyone have everything there if you dig enough. Then take down the patent system as even them are covered by your patent. And then we can live happily ever after.

Re:Stop being rational

[viperidaenz]

Stop being an idiot. You can't patent a number. There are only a few irrational numbers used by things anyway.
If everything uses you magical irrational number, then there is prior art going back ~14 billion years. Imaginary Patent invalidated.

Re:Stop being rational

[gmuslera]

You should not be able to patent simple molecules produced by common plants, ideas (specially common sense ones), sounds, colors, rectangular shapes, or even genes... but they do, and probably things far simpler that i said here. Of course, maybe you won't be able to patent a number, but once you bought enough politicians you probably will.

Bad title is bad

[hacksoncode]

I fully understand why people have a visceral reaction to the idea of patents on human genes, but the fact is that these are not patents on human genes, they are patents on artificially extracted and purified forms of certain gene sequences that do not occur in isolation in nature.

People do own their own genes, as they occur in their bodies.

From the Federal Register:

A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a person whose body ``includes'' a patented gene could infringe the patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented, isolated and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented, isolated and purified form. When the patent issued for purified adrenaline about one hundred years ago, people did not infringe the patent merely because their bodies naturally included unpurified adrenaline.

Re:Bad title is bad

[viperidaenz]

There are processes that happen in your adrenal glands that produce pure adrenaline.

I don't have a problem with patents that cover the extraction, isolation and purification of compounds produced by the body, but to have a patent that covers the result is like issuing a patent on pure H2O because you invented steam distillation. You have a process you invented to extract and purify something. You get a patent on that process, not what it produces.

Re:Sigh. More slashdot statist propaganda.

[the biologist]

They didn't pay for the research and development. The human genome project produced the data which they then used to apply for patents.

Bad joke, i apologize in advance

[Anonymous Coward]

ahem... re Apparently his DRM was faulty Apparently his DRM was faulty...
c:> DRM faulty, Abort, Roe, Wade?

or ...

Apparently his DRM was faulty...
c:> DRM faulty, Abort, Adopt, Conceive, Marry?

Can thank them for outsourcing another industry

[Anonymous Coward]

If not, there are a lot of countries where this patent wont be enforced that'll be more than happy to take the work. Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia would probably benefit a lot from a decision in U.S. law that prevents a segment of industry from being able to do certain procedures and research.

Medical science, one of the few industries still profitable to do here. But I guess greedy few calling first dibs will ruin that pretty soon.

The original affluent society

[Paul Fernhout]

http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm
"Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times."

Re:The original affluent society

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet we're descendants of those hunter gatherers - explain how a society where "everybody's wants were easily satisfied" evolves into modern industrial society if that initial premise is true?

If you have very low expectations and don't realize what's possible, it's quite easy to be content with what little you have. Show a primitive hunter-gatherer the conveniences of modern life, and he'll quickly realize that maybe living in a mud and twig lean-to isn't as great as he thought.

Re:The original affluent society

[eennaarbrak]

explain how a society where "everybody's wants were easily satisfied" evolves into modern industrial society if that initial premise is true?

That's easy. Change in society does not have to be driven by improvement on an individual level. Societies that grow food crop will have higher population growths than societies of hunter-gatherers. As agricultural society expands, it usurps/conquers/murders the neighbouring hunter-gatherer societies. Whether individuals in the agricultural society were happier/more content/healthier is not relevant - they simply had more people, and hence more military power. Same for the industrial revolution.

Re:The original affluent society

[Anonymous Coward]

Our current society grew out of hunter-gatherer societies. We didn't arise as a separate evolutionary path, and we didn't magically appear on the scene overnight. Hunter-gatherers realized that it kind of sucked chasing herds of animals around all the time while getting wet and cold, carrying everything you own on your back. So they learned to build comfortable houses, raise herds of their own animals, and grow their own berries, seeds, and other vegetables. In other words: they developed a lifestyle that was preferable for them.

This "blissful, idyllic primitive" meme is silly. There's a reason our ancestors - who were "blissful, idyllic primitives" - settled down and started farming. They weren't raped and conquered into it: they preferred it to their nomadic lifestyle. The only reason they were "blissful and idyllic" is because they didn't know any better.

I notice you're quick to assert the superiority of the hunter-gatherer on your computer, from the comfort of your office or home. If you're not happy with your life today, and think it would be preferable to live as a hunter-gatherer, why not put your money where your mouth is?

Re:The original affluent society

[eennaarbrak]

I pointed out to you that societal change is not dependent on individual well-being. You attributed to that the assertion that societal change precludes increases in individual well-being. I made no such claim (hence most of your retort is a straw man).

Whether hunter-gatherers were happier than we are today is essentially unmeasurable, since we don't know how happy they were with what they had. What we do know is that their happiness were irrelevant within the change in society.

It is easy to imagine a modern society where the inhabitants are unhappier than hunter-gatherer societies. North Korea may well be such an example, or England in medieval times during the feudal system. Your idea of "progress implies improved happiness" is not only misguided but flat out fallacious.

Re:I don't mind

[crutchy]

your surname isn't Bernanke by any chance?

Gene Patents

[HamishMcN]

I found Michael Critchen's Next http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_(novel) quite scary with respect to the lack of ownership it says people have of their genes.
It also has a very reasonable sounding solution at the end - to increase the rights of ownership of our genes up to the level of ownership we have over of a photograph of ourselves.
That doesn't seem like too much to ask.

Re:Gene Patents

[Electricity Likes Me]

I found Michael Critchen's Next http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_(novel) quite scary with respect to the lack of ownership it says people have of their genes.
It also has a very reasonable sounding solution at the end - to increase the rights of ownership of our genes up to the level of ownership we have over of a photograph of ourselves.
That doesn't seem like too much to ask.

Don't take Michael Crichton too seriously.

Games!?!

[Boawk]

Whew! I started to panic when I first read the headline as "You Don't 'Own' Your Own Games". That was quite the scare. OK, what's the next story?

NEXT

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Crichton was right to warn us of this danger in his novel, "Next". Don't these guys read fiction??

Prior Art!

[wilfy]

Prior Art! I existed before any of these patents; Sadly, quite a long time before.

Periodic Table

[Anonymous Coward]

I own it.. so pay up bitchez!

One step further

[DrYak]

And its one step further toward insanity.

At least if you leave code alone (as in sleeping on a USB stick) nothing is going to ever happen to it.
Even if code duplication comes virtually for free, at least some level of intent is necessary for duplicated to happen.

With llife form, it's much worse. Life's own purpose is to make copies of it self and try to survive.
Leave a plant or an animal alone and they'll start repoducing on their own.
Intellectual Property in the realm of biology goes against the very principle of biology. You need to suppress a process which is happening naturally. You have to fight against nature itself to prevent unauthorized duplicate.

FTS

[AndyKron]

If this is allowed to continue I say fuck the rules, and buy as many guns as you can afford.

Re:Sigh. More slashdot statist propaganda.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the right-wing atheists have their pantheon:

Shema Yisrael, Ron Paul Eloheinu, Ron Paul Echad!
Shema Yisrael, Friedrich von Hayek Eloheinu, Friedrive von Hayek Echad!
Shema Yisrael, Ayn Rand Eloheinu, Ayn Rand Echad!
Shema Yisrael, Milton Friedman Eloheinu, Milton Friedman Echad!
Shema Yisrael, Murry Rothbard Eloheinu, Murray Rothbard Echad!
Shema Yisrael, Ludwig von Mises Eloheinu, Ludwing von Mises Echad!

However, HARD WORK by PRIVATE individuals need the government to be their security thugs. Hyperindividualists should not be allowed to use any public goods and services. To these, the tragedy of the commons is its mere existence since they cannot profit therefrom.

I for one welcome our new Transgene overloads

[Anonymous Coward]

Hail Transgenes

what about transuranics?

[almechist]

The isolated genes do not exist in nature, and never have. "Products of nature" is not read so broadly as to include any combination of hydrogen, carbon, or other elements, regardless of what isolation or manipulation you perform on them, or no machine would ever be patentable either, by definition.

Using this logic, wouldn't trans-uranic elements also be patentable, since they are all unstable and thus not found in nature? To my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested these elements could possibly be patented, but I don't see why not, given the similarity of the circumstances.

Personally, of course, I believe it's a travesty to suggest that any of this stuff is patentable. To state that these genetic sequences are "not found in nature" is insane, it's a bunch of lawyers bending the English language to the breaking point. Lawyers are good at that kind of thing, apparently.

Re:what about transuranics?

[Theaetetus]

The isolated genes do not exist in nature, and never have. "Products of nature" is not read so broadly as to include any combination of hydrogen, carbon, or other elements, regardless of what isolation or manipulation you perform on them, or no machine would ever be patentable either, by definition.

Using this logic, wouldn't trans-uranic elements also be patentable, since they are all unstable and thus not found in nature? To my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested these elements could possibly be patented, but I don't see why not, given the similarity of the circumstances.

Uh, about that... Element 95.

Prior Use

[Anonymous Coward]

QED