Will the Supreme Court End Human Gene Patents?

An anonymous reader writes "Monday, the Supreme Court will hear a case on the validity of breast cancer gene patents. The court has a chance to end human gene patents after three decades. From the article: 'Since the 1980s, patent lawyers have been claiming pieces of humanity's genetic code. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted thousands of gene patents. The Federal Circuit, the court that hears all patent appeals, has consistently ruled such patents are legal. But the judicial winds have been shifting. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the legality of gene patents. And recently, the Supreme Court has grown increasingly skeptical of the Federal Circuit's patent-friendly jurisprudence. Meanwhile, a growing number of researchers, health care providers, and public interest groups have raised concerns about the harms of gene patents. The American Civil Liberties Union estimates that more than 40 percent of genes are now patented. Those patents have created "patent thickets" that make it difficult for scientists to do genetic research and commercialize their results. Monopolies on genetic testing have raised prices and reduced patient options.'"

Comments

The government doing something right?

[UltraZelda64]

Come on... seriously now...

No.

Re:The government doing something right?

[femtobyte]

I don't have high expectations for any institution that's over 10% Scalia, but once in a while the government does manage to do the right thing, at least for the wrong reasons.

Re:The government doing something right?

[hsmith]

God forbid Congress and the President do something about it. No, lets hope the Supreme Court, nine old people, figure it out.

Patenting genes, which aren't fucking inventions - is purely insane.

Re:The government doing something right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, they'll probably just rule it legal anyway in order to set a nice profitable precedent.

Re:The government doing something right?

[rainmouse]

I don't have high expectations for any institution that's over 10% Scalia, but once in a while the government does manage to do the right thing, at least for the wrong reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtRlkEI8SV4

Re:The government doing something right?

[TrollstonButtersbean]

In 12 years or so, it will hard to take any ruling on human genome with a straight face as we will have ability to model it and work with it on our own computers in the near future. As a result I am largely uninterested in what the court decides. Law has to bow to the irresistible gravity of new informational norms. When those changes, it is up to our formal institutions to adapt.

Re:The government doing something right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, there's no way in hell that the Supreme Court will end human gene patents. Like hell they'd turn their backs on their buddies. If they turn their backs on the 1%ers that harshly, I'd be surprised if they were still either judges or even alive a year from then.

The upper caste don't like having their cash cows killed.

Re:The government doing something right?

[Alex Belits]

"Let's pretend, it always was illegal" is easier than actually making something illegal, no matter how worthless and disgusting it is.

Case in point: Roe vs. Wade. Of course, it is based on invalid reasoning. But that's easier than telling misogynistic bible-thumpers in power that they should shut up and respect basic human dignity.

Re:The government doing something right?

[Alex Belits]

12 years ago it was 2001.
DMCA is from 1998.

Re:The government doing something right?

[roccomaglio]

If you look through the decisions of the supreme court, I bet you would find a number of decisions on which you agree with Scalia, Kelo v. City of New London for one.

Re:The government doing something right?

[geek]

Shhhhh. Don't give the liberals facts and supporting documentation. It scares them. Why do you think they have the DailyKOS?

Re:The government doing something right?

[SydShamino]

That's the only case, though, in that it's the big liberal-wing failure that's always trotted out to counter dozens of cases where the conservative wing has let the country down.

Re:The government doing something right?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. So if anyone does any one thing you agree with, you should not dislike them. That is a bad argument and you know it.

2. I know plenty of people who are considered liberals that disagreed with the Kelo v City of New London case.

Re:The government doing something right?

[compro01]

His decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association is also one most here would agree with.

Re:The government doing something right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or why conservatives have Rush Limbaugh!

Re:The government doing something right?

[Jane Q. Public]

"That's the only case, though, in that it's the big liberal-wing failure that's always trotted out to counter dozens of cases where the conservative wing has let the country down."

Not to pick on you particularly, but this whole argument makes me sick.

The TRUTH is that BOTH sides have been letting The People down for decades. Any other viewpoint is fantasyland.

I don't know the answer.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Is figuring out what constitutes a gene for something really the Herculean effort (deserving of patent protection) it used to be?

Or is it more like the Oklahoma Land Grab at this point?

Re:I don't know the answer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is figuring out what constitutes a gene for something really the Herculean effort (deserving of patent protection) it used to be?

Did Einstein patent the Theory of Relativity?

Did Linus Pauling patent the Nature of the Chemical Bond?

Does any astronomer who discovers a planet patent it?

If I could dig a ditch from NY to LA. Should I get a patent on that ditch? After all, it would be a Herculean effort.

Re:I don't know the answer.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Is figuring out what constitutes a gene for something really the Herculean effort (deserving of patent protection) it used to be?

As AC pointed out, "Herculean effort" is not necessarily deserving of patent protection. That being said, yes, figuring out what constitutes "the gene for X" (which for the vast majority of diseases is actually more like "the N genes and assorted epigenetic modifications for X," where N is some fairly large number) is still in most cases a task which would challenge even a demigod. Since those of us working in the fields aren't demigods, we have to rely on a whole lot of skull sweat and processor cycles. It still doesn't mean we should get to patent what we discover through this process, for the simple reason that they are discoveries rather than inventions.

Re:I don't know the answer.

[dwye]

If I could dig a ditch from NY to LA. Should I get a patent on that ditch?

No, because there is prior art going back at least as far as the Roman Empire (assuming that you are smart enough to then fill the ditch with water).

OTOH, you have the right to charge tolls on it (assuming that you got the rights of way, first -- otherwise you get the right to a small cell in a big pen), and these tolls are what encourage people to build them. Well, mostly encouraged them, since canals aren't that easy to build in new places, anymore. The canal between the Rhine and the Danube doesn't count since that has been in and out of existence since the Late Roman Empire.

Re:I don't know the answer.

[Y2KDragon]

More likely something like this... "Your gene is in my body, and it made me sick. You're going to pay me for having it, for my medical treatment, and my pain and suffering." The first time the courts rule in favor of a cancer patient that way, you'll see every company out there abandoning their gene patents. They want to protect their right to make money, then they have to assume the liability for their "product".

Re:I don't know the answer.

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Or is it more like the Oklahoma Land Grab at this point?

Undeniably this.

The equipment to do the work is cheap and no longer requires a PhD... In a few years it will be as simple to sequence genes as it is to make a BLT.

Re:I don't know the answer.

[s.petry]

That does not change the points the person made. A massive thing of some type being patented means that nobody else could build a competitive massive thing. We don't allow it, and it's nonsense to suggest that because of the effort require to make something it is "patentable".

The other point made is that discovering something in nature, or figuring out how something in nature works is also not patentable. Even if it takes many years worth of math to figure it out. Many scientists discourage patenting discoveries because it stifles future discoveries as well as prevents people from improving discoveries.

Re:I don't know the answer.

[cdrudge]

If you abandon a patent, does that absolve you liability for your invention? Or did it ever make you responsible for your patent to begin with? In your example would a company ever have the liability for a patented gene sequence that did give someone cancer for instance.

questionable claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this bit from the summary actually true? Anyone have any evidence to support it?

And recently, the Supreme Court has grown increasingly skeptical of the Federal Circuit's patent-friendly jurisprudence.

This will get struck down

[BTWR]

The masses don't know about this story yet. Once the Gay Marriage debate dies down a bit (or once the decision is released) and this becomes the next big court case, you will see overwhelming popular support for eliminating gene patents.

Then again, I supposed Citizens United is very unpopular too, and that seems to have passed...

Re:This will get struck down

[chromaexcursion]

Good point, but very different constitutional foundations.
The same reason the court ruled in favor of Citizens United is why they rule against gene patents.

On a more favorable front. The SEC is likely to require all publicly traded corps to publish their political activities.
Most companies fear public backlash more than their non-favored candidate in office.

Re:This will get struck down

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's why the gay marriage debate is still going on.

Re:This will get struck down

[VortexCortex]

The masses don't know about this story yet. Once the Gay Marriage debate dies down a bit (or once the decision is released) and this becomes the next big court case, you will see overwhelming popular support for eliminating gene patents.

Well, I agree, with clarification that it will be popular support for eliminating the gay gene patent.

Sulu, you've had your fun. Now it's time to share your innovation with the rest of the galaxy.

Re:This will get struck down

[Anonymous Coward]

The SEC requiring publicly traded corps to publish their political activities will actually be really usefull. Stops alot of the impetus behind superpacs. If they made it so that names were listed alongside superpacs, then it would really stop the abuse we saw in the last election cycle.

Genuine question

[Anonymous Coward]

Genuine question: how does someone researching gene therapies then commercialize their research without patents; what is the process? I agree with the ethics of not having patents on the human genome, but then what is the process a genetic researcher would then use to turn their research into a product and bring it to market; what's the incentive for a genetic researcher to research new therapies? It seems to me this is expensive and complicated, so there should be some incentive or payoff for the time and money invested. Just curious.

Re:Genuine question

[Tastecicles]

DISCOVERING what a gene sequence is for isn't an INVENTION, therefore not patentable - under the OLD RULES. They had to REWRITE THE RULES to allow this shit.

Growing a human ear on the spine of a mouse isn't an invention, it's a crime against Nature, one using a genetic sequence that wasn't INVENTED but DISCOVERED: the sequence that instructs stem cells to grow in the shape of an ear.

Using pigs to produce human insulin isn't an INVENTION, it's the result of a process of DISCOVERY that a sequence we ALL CARRY can be transplanted into a pig embryo to make it produce huge quantities of a hormone that's useless to pigs but essential for the survival of people who wouldn't need it if they ate proper food (I can cite a source: a friend who was on 140mg insulin a day in the UK moved to Spain and went on a prepackaged-free diet. I mean, everything. Her insulin use went to ZERO within six weeks, she still lives in Spain and she is still off the insulin because she is eating PROPERLY).

Re:Genuine question

[MightyMartian]

The profit presumably comes from the therapies developed with this knowledge, just like in other fields of inquiry. Just because the discoverers of electrons or photons couldn't patent electrons and photons didn't mean novel inventions couldn't be built with the newfound insights.

Re: Genuine question

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize, don't you, that some people are insulin dependent diabetics for reason other than diet? Surely you're not THAT ignorant? I know this is slashdot , and let's not stop a good rant because of facts or anything, but one antecdote does not data make. Oh, and that recombinant human insulin you were dismissing, does not occur in nature. It is similar, but not identical.

Re: Genuine question

[Tastecicles]

...and I should pay any mind to an AC who cannot spell "ANECDOTE" why?

Fuck off.

Re: Genuine question

[Anonymous Coward]

ugh- worst person to have on my side sorry for his ignorant anti-scince rant

The big problem with gene patents is that they don't cover just specific artificially created gene variants (like pig production of insulin) but any copy of a naturally occurring region of the human genome, so long as it is isolated when used to treat or diagnose a specific disease. In order to do anything research or diagnosis-wise to a sequence you need to do this, usually through PCR. Because of this such patents mean that to do new research on a patented gene you need the permission of the patent holder,(why should they say yes?) and will often have to pay them for their licence when it comes to using your treatment (if they decide to give you one) even if your methodology is different and your discovery has nothing to do with them.

Re:Genuine question

[Anonymous Coward]

They should give the drugs away for free and then make money off of tech support calls.

Re:Genuine question

[viperidaenz]

You lost all credibility with the phrase "crime against Nature".

Re:Genuine question

[viperidaenz]

Therapies that anyone else can provide at lower cost because they don't need to pay back the money it cost to do the research?

Re:Genuine question

[MightyMartian]

Just knowing what a gene does no more automatically guarantees one can develop a therapy than identifying an electron confers the ability to build a battery.

If you didn't invent the gene and its function, you should have no more right to patent it than Hubble did the expansion of the universe. They are discoveries, not inventions, and if that makes monetizing them difficult, then tough.

Re:Genuine question

[viperidaenz]

So chemical patents should be thrown out too? Because X + Y = Z is a discovery not an invention.

Re:Genuine question

[Alex Belits]

Genuine question: how does someone researching gene therapies then commercialize their research without patents; what is the process?

Same way he does now, by going to work and being paid salary. Most likly by NIH, directly or indirectly (or similar organization in other countries).

Oh, you mean, some parasite executive? Then no, he won't. Nothing wrong with that.

Re:Genuine question

[MysteriousPreacher]

Using pigs to produce human insulin isn't an INVENTION, it's the result of a process of DISCOVERY that a sequence we ALL CARRY can be transplanted into a pig embryo to make it produce huge quantities of a hormone that's useless to pigs but essential for the survival of people who wouldn't need it if they ate proper food (I can cite a source: a friend who was on 140mg insulin a day in the UK moved to Spain and went on a prepackaged-free diet. I mean, everything. Her insulin use went to ZERO within six weeks, she still lives in Spain and she is still off the insulin because she is eating PROPERLY).

The application is THE invention. By YOUR logic every invention is just chipping AWAY the marble to reveal the STATUE inside THE block

I can CITE a source: a friend who was on 140mg insulin a day in the UK moved TO Spain and WENT on a prepackaged-free diet. I MEAN, everything. She stopped using HER insulin and Her oxygen USE went to ZERO.

Re:Genuine question

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, therein lies the problem (original AC here). Scientist A goes out and researches the human genome, "discovering" what a certain sequence of genes does, for example a gene sequence that promotoes bad cholesterol development. I could be wrong, but this strikes me as an expensive prospect, at the very least expensive due to the schooling required to learn what he needed to be able to do the research. Scientist B takes said research, and develops a gene therapy that reduces cholesterol in 90% of humans, also an expensive prospect.

Under what people are describing, scientist B can patent his therapy, but scientist A cannot patent his discovery, despite the fact that without A's expensive work B would never be able to have developed his therapy. Scientist B has a therapy that reduces cholesterol in a huge amount of the population, so B is multi-millionaire thanks to his patent whereas A is sitting there grumpy because he got nothing for his hard work.

So with a patent in discoveries, scientist A at least gets some of the reward and credit for the therapy, when it was half his work. Under a no patent system, there will be no inventive for A to ever do the same research again, and no way future scientists will head that direction when the reward and recognition is in the therapy development, but the first layer research is perhaps even more critical. So without patents (again I am against patents on the human genome), how do you incentivize a scientist (or someone paying the scientist to counter the stupid argument below about he should just accept his salary; his salary comes from someone who is looking for a payoff) to conduct this type of research?

Re:Genuine question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you forcing a model where only tax revenue is used/abused? Why shouldn't private entities participate? If yes... where is the money going to come from for those salaries?

Oh wait.. you must be a commie..right?

Re:Genuine question

[almechist]

Genuine question: how does someone researching gene therapies then commercialize their research without patents; what is the process? I agree with the ethics of not having patents on the human genome, but then what is the process a genetic researcher would then use to turn their research into a product and bring it to market; what's the incentive for a genetic researcher to research new therapies? It seems to me this is expensive and complicated, so there should be some incentive or payoff for the time and money invested. Just curious.

Why does the default have to be commercialization? This is basic research! Have we completely abandoned the idea of knowledge for knowledge's sake? It seems to me there is something wrong with an assumption that all research must be commercialized. I assure you this was not the way science was done for most of our country's history, this is a new thing. My father was a clinical pathologist who could have made a lot of money in the private sector. He deliberately took a job at a much lower pay level working for the VA. He did this because they offered him a big lab and a large research budget. He never gave a thought to commercializing the results of his studies, he was mainly concerned with helping people and advancing science, and I would like to think that he wasn't all that unique in this. How times have changed... I doubt the VA even sponsors much basic research anymore, and the places that do are mainly in it for the money. Being a scientist should not always be about the money.

The purpose of a gene is a discovery

[PerformanceDude]

I never understood how they could allow this to happen in the first place. Clearly finding out the purpose of a gene will always be a discovery and not an invention. Discoveries are not patentable.

Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery

[UltraZelda64]

They are in this fucked up country...

Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery

[Tastecicles]

they had to rewrite the admissibility rules to allow this shit, that's what happened.

Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery

[Grond]

Clearly finding out the purpose of a gene will always be a discovery and not an invention. Discoveries are not patentable.

"The term “invention” means invention or discovery." 35 U.S.C. 100(a). You can argue that this is not what the law should be, but this has been the law in the United States since at least 1952.

Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery

[the eric conspiracy]

Probably much further.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery

[Theaetetus]

I never understood how they could allow this to happen in the first place. Clearly finding out the purpose of a gene will always be a discovery and not an invention. Discoveries are not patentable.

35 USC 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

It happens because of a perversion of legalese and terminology.

You can't technically patent a gene in the native form, but you can patent a "purified" version of it. You can then patent anything related to that "purified" "non-native" variant of the gene, which includes testing. That testing may, at some point, involve an isolated fragment of the gene in question, at which point you have infringed on their patent.

The thing that people haven't pointed out yet in this discussion (that I've seen), is that this case will have direct implications on the concept of "bio-prospecting", in which you discover novel compounds, often produced by plants, and then patent them. In many ways that will be as big or bigger than the genes debate, in part because there is a big more validity to that practice.

Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery

[Alex Belits]

"Authors and inventors", does not mean researchers The person who makes a scientific discovery is a researcher.

Also, that document is written in archaic English that no one should even pretend to understand now.

Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery

[AmiMoJo]

My understanding is that they can't patent the gene itself, only an application of that gene. So for example if they find one that can stop breast cancer by turning it off they can patent it for that use and stop people being cured without paying them first.

"Your money or you life" sound familiar?

Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically speaking all inventions are "discoveries" of ways of putting together components to do a task, genes are no different except for their size. The issue of course is whether or not allowing gene patents is "promot(ing) the Progress of Science and useful Arts", which is what they are supposed to do. The problem these days is most patents are not used to promote progress, but to lock a simply discovered/invented item under patent law and use that patent as a legal form of robbery. Patent law did at one point have a system for preventing this, allowing people to independently invent identical patents, as long as they did so without copying the other. However these days virtually every country has switched to the "first to patent" method, where one person could have spent years inventing something, but if another party gets to the patent office first all of their hard work is down the drain.

Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery

[krondell]

Or maybe like a recipe. It's definitely a set of facts that exists. If you can't patent Coke a Cola...

Patent Validity

[mephox]

It would be nice to see a Human Health and Well-Being clause for patents of things like this, shortening (though not eliminating) the monopolistic period during which companies can claim sole profits on a product which could save lives. With a stringent set of rules, of course such as providing that the patent actually includes something that cures or treats a disease/condition that is life threatening and thus shortening the road to genericness.

Re:Patent Validity

[Anonymous Coward]

... With a stringent set of rules ...

Telling big pharma what do to! Umm, that has sleazy lobbyists or regulatory capture written all over it.

Captcha: pester

They shouldn't.

[VortexCortex]

I think we should be able to patent similar sized sections of machine code as well.

This shit will never get better until it gets SO BAD that not even the rich greedy monopolies can make money. THEN we can fix the situation and end all patents (and copyrights too).

Life is copying. You are trillions of copies of a single cell. We owe the entire advancement of the Human race to our ability to freely share ideas -- It's the only thing we have over the damn dirty apes, and we're squandering it for greed...

Re:They shouldn't.

[shentino]

The rich greedy monopolies are the ones having their lobbyists write the rules.

They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot, and they aren't going to let their political pets do so either.

The law has always and always will mean whatever the elite damn well say it does.

Natural vs artificial

[Taco Cowboy]

I believe that, if the "human gene" occurs naturally, that is, already existed before being discovered, they should not be patentable --- something akin to "prior art"

But on the other hand, if the "human gene" is has a new sequence, result of some artificial manipulation in some lab, and has special characteristics, then I think it would be unfair to prohibit those who have invested their time and effort in creating something that has never existed before in patenting the new genetic sequence(s)

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Intellectual property is a lie. "Discoveries" like this can be "rediscovered" an infinite number of times, but the first dick to the prize gets to monopolize potentially life-saving information? No. They don't. The internet has made intellectual property a thing of the past.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[UltraZelda64]

And what happens that that gene is later found to exist somewhere in nature?

What about those "artificial" genes made in labs that make their way into organisms through 100% natural methods? Should some biotechnology company "own" all of our rice just because some farmer decided to use their seeds, and their crops then crossed with, thereby contaminating all nearby farmers' rice crops?

And it takes a virus or bacterium to transfer the gene into a plant... should humans really receive the patent for doing something that a lowly microorganism does itself?

Patenting living things is just a bad idea. Period.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[The Grim Reefer]

The internet has made intellectual property a thing of the past.

Talk like that will do nothing good for the internet.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It isn't about being fair. It is about what produces the best result for society as a whole.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing new under the sun. Life is but evolutionary mathematics and should not even be considered patentable.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[chromaexcursion]

There are some serious gaps in patent law.
One of them is the cause of a case which the Supreme Court has heard, but hasn't ruled yet. Monsanto vs [I can't recall] for the Round up resistant soybeans. If something can replicate/reproduce naturally it can't be patented.
Sadly the Federal Appeals courts have been more than a bit ignorant in their rulings. But then most of them have never taken any science after high school. Forget jury trials, you don't have to have graduated HS to serve on a jury.
With a couple notable exceptions, the current court seems to be able to grasp (read their staff briefs them well) advanced concepts.
I believe there is hope.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[BrokenHalo]

It isn't about being fair. It is about what produces the best result for society as a whole.

No it's not. It's about appeasing the lobby group with the biggest legal fund. So even if the Supreme Court did happen to strike down gene patents (which I believe unlikely), there's no reason why those interest groups wouldn't just lobby Congress to get the law changed in their favour. I would guess they would have a high likelihood of success there, given that all politicians are corrupt.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[the eric conspiracy]

Human genes as they occur naturally are not patentable.

It is only after they are isolated and a use is found for them in the isolated form that they become patentable.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Hentes]

I don't think the second case qualifies as human gene.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but isolated form means PCR, a reaction for copying up stretches of DNA which is so trivial a procedure in modern science that you are starting to get home kits for it, and used for almost every diagnosis and investigative method. Then because of this something novel means "any diagnosis based on this gene for X disease under Y circumstances ". The current system is allowing the patenting of any standard means of checking a known location with standard methods for a specific disease, where the linking of the location of the gene to the disease is the "inovation", discovery is not innovation. There have been several multinational government consortium doing this sort of linkage who have later re-found such links.

Even if you are doing something different than the company that (often speculatively) patented the gene it still covers you because everything and anything you do will need PCR, so if you have a new idea for such a gene you would be better of if the original company had missed the link. how does this help innovation? it actively stifles research into any gene already patented.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[icebike]

Worse yet, (and bringing the discussion back home to humans), could a human be charged a license fee for reproducing (having children) simply because they paid for a medical treatment that involved gene therapy which becomes part of their DNA?

Its time to end this silliness before it becomes a pervasive a cell phone patents and software patents. If doing so turns off all research into genetic medicine so be it. (It won't, but that's what the drug companies will claim, and its long past time to call their bluff). Someone else will step up and provide it on more agreeable terms.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[erroneus]

Excellent point. And since these patents are used to concentrate wealth, something which has *ALWAYS* been bad for society as a whole, then we are in agreement.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[ChromeAeonium]

And what happens that that gene is later found to exist somewhere in nature?

That's fairly unlikely, especially if it is existing in the patented organism.

Should some biotechnology company "own" all of our rice just because some farmer decided to use their seeds, and their crops then crossed with, thereby contaminating all nearby farmers' rice crops?

Certainty not.

And it takes a virus or bacterium to transfer the gene into a plant... should humans really receive the patent for doing something that a lowly microorganism does itself?

I'm not sure I follow why that matters. In the end all inventions are just a more precise manipulation of natural forces.

Patenting living things is just a bad idea. Period.

Why? If you don't like patented organisms, you don't have to use them. Me, some of my favorite things exist because of patents, and humanity has gotten some great stuff out of patented organisms that in all likelihood would not exist if they could simply be reproduced.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty soon none of this will matter anyway because Medusa is a bit on the upset side. When Medusa isn't happy you know it's about to get real. She's going to be gazing... gazing and turning humans into stone and using their statues as archery practice. You don't have DNA when you're turned to stone. The future is bleak if you're not Medusa or blind.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I don't know if we are in agreement. Sure patents concentrate wealth, but they also provide motivation. The world isn't black and white, you have to try to figure out the net result to decide what is best for society.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[UltraZelda64]

Now that is truly a sickening thought, and one I didn't even think of. Yikes. Now that would be bad.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[UltraZelda64]

Why? If you don't like patented organisms, you don't have to use them. Me, some of my favorite things exist because of patents, and humanity has gotten some great stuff out of patented organisms that in all likelihood would not exist if they could simply be reproduced.

What happens when a genetically-modified crop is so widely grown that it has spread its destructive, patented genes to all other nearby "non-GMO" crops? Does that mean that I need to avoid all products containing even a trace amount of that crop, because either I can't trust it to be non-GMO or even know for sure that there's a 99% chance that all of that crop IS GMO? Take corn for example... good luck finding even an ear of corn that hasn't been genetically borked, let alone a bottle of whiskey or cornbread or ever tortilla chips! Oh, does your loaf of bread or your ketchup or fruit punch have high-fructose corn syrup? Better put that down--it's contaminated. In this case, those people living in countries other than the U.S. at least have lower GMO usage by farmers overall. Of course, I don't live in one of those countries.

Soy is another one--I don't eat soy personally (at least not by choice...), but I swear you can hardly find anything in stores that doesn't have that damn thing listed as an ingredient. And, of course, the good ol' government doesn't think it's in our best interests to know that a food product on the shelves contains GMO ingredients, so it's usually not exactly easy to figure out. But by just eliminating anything that contain the big two--corn and soy based products--you'll end up with the problem of being unable to buy anything to eat. So much for choice.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Could always patent the way to create that gene instead of the gene itself. You can't patent Hydrogen, but if you have a new, more efficient way of producing it, you can patent that.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[jelizondo]

Please, take a moment to think.

Shall we grant ownership of asteroids, planets and other celestial objects to the astronomer who discovers them?

If not, why should other natural objects be treated differently?

If you are talking about patentig a sequencing method or a method to change a natural gene, then, by all means, grant a patent. Otherwise, forget it.

And then we have to deal with unintended consequences... What if the changed gene has deadly side-effects?

The corporations want the government to assure them their profits, but they don't want to take the risk.

Maybe we should not grant genetic patents at all?

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Theaetetus]

If something can replicate/reproduce naturally it can't be patented.

Says who? What about Diamond v. Chakrabarty, in which the Supreme Court said that genetically modified oil-eating bacteria (which can replicate naturally) were patentable?

Sadly the Federal Appeals courts have been more than a bit ignorant in their rulings. But then most of them have never taken any science after high school. Forget jury trials, you don't have to have graduated HS to serve on a jury.

Of the judges on the Federal Circuit, (aside from their JDs) there are:
Rader - B.A. in English
Newman - Ph.D. in Chemistry
Lourie - Ph.D. in Chemistry
Dyk - B.A. in English
Prost - B.S. in something sciencey
Moore - M.S. in EE
O'Malley - B.A.
Reyna - B.A.
Wallach - B.A.
Taranto - B.A.

So, while not science heavy, at 4/9, it's actually a more technical pool of judges than most other panels, including the Supreme Court.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Me, some of my favorite things exist because of patents

There's no way to prove this unless you are able to look into an alternate reality where patents do not exist. That's one of the problems with copyrights and patents right now: they exist based on the assumption that there would barely be any innovation without them, but it is an unproven assumption, and any laws which don't have evidence to back them up are unjustified.

Even if that were true, however, government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures are immoral. Can't find a valid business model? You deserve to fail. Turning to violence (government force) isn't a valid option to anyone with morals.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Bremic]

Every time two organisms come together and combine their genome to create a new organism they are manipulating the gene code to something that is unique and different.

It's a serious issue if two people randomly create a genetic improvement in their offspring and are now able to be prosecuted because of it.

Patent a way of making children able to be born with green eyes. Two people naturally have a child with green eyes, so they have breached your patent because they didn't pay you for it. That's an issue that should not be ignored, whether it is eye color, skin condition or cancer resistance.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Samantha Wright]

You may find it comforting to know that, so far, GM crops have had no direct effect on human health. (Unlike, say, drugged livestock.) Plants don't use often use hormones that are compatible with the human body, so the likelihood of health problems occurring is somewhat diminished. One notable exception is the fig, which produces a chemical similar to estrogen.

Also, a lot of people don't understand that genes only spread when they're evolutionary beneficial to the organism receiving them. Usually, the benefit is either metabolic (the ability to digest a new nutrient) or defensive (the ability to survive pesticides or natural poisons.) The worst thing that can happen to crops is that they become easier to farm. To date, the biggest legal case involving the spread of genes was a case where a farmer was re-selling herbicide-resistant seeds patented by Monsanto; pollen from a neighbouring field had spread over to his. But it's not like this affects you, the grocery-buyer—if Monsanto had contract terms saying they can sue their customers' customers, no one would do business with them!

Most of the paranoia regarding the genetic manipulation of crops is the product of a culture accustomed to paranoid science fiction. There are plenty of cases where business practices are doing serious harm to human health—factory farming, for example, is responsible for several serious diseases, some of them incurable—but GM crops really aren't an issue. We simply don't know enough to create a real mess yet.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's not like this affects you, the grocery-buyer

I care if it affects anyone. Monsanto is an evil piece of garbage taking advantage of immoral government-enforced monopolies.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[MysteriousPreacher]

There's no way to prove this unless you are able to look into an alternate reality where patents do not exist. That's one of the problems with copyrights and patents right now: they exist based on the assumption that there would barely be any innovation without them, but it is an unproven assumption, and any laws which don't have evidence to back them up are unjustified.

Possibly Somalia until the US convinces the government that institutionalised rape is small potatoes in comparison to the heartbreak of music piracy.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[jxander]

Just a bit of devil's advocate : they're all unique, to an extent. My genome is different from yours. Both of ours differ from any previously discovered. It would be like trying to claim all book copyrights are invalid because books have existed previously

That's not to say genes should be viable for patents. They most certainly should not; mostly because no one invented them. All we can do is observe and possibly manipulate them. There's no invention there, no creation. There's nothing to patent in the genome. If someone wants to patent a procedure for mapping, sure. Or a method by which to manipulate a genome, that's fine. But the genome itself, the sequence of building blocks both before and after any manipulation ... that simply should not be up for purchase.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Genda]

Actually what Mosanto has done is wiped out hundreds of small farms by predatory lawsuits which serves large agrobusiness (their primary customers) just fine. So big players are using GM to push small farms out of existence.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[fnj]

You may find it comforting to know that, so far, GM crops have had no direct effect on human health.

If I were naive enough to trust leaps to conclusions and claims which cannot POSSIBLY be proved, yes, I suppose that statement would comfort me. If you had said "as far as we have yet been able to determine, no effects on human health have so far been traced", which is more a more supportable statement, I wouldn't feel comfortable at all.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Different culture and government.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[erroneus]

Motivation has never been necessary. It may only be necessary for investors to sink money into things, but people create and invent because it is in their nature to do so. Putting money behind it only gives cause for others to want to control and limit it.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

could a human be charged a license fee for reproducing (having children)

Why just for having children? Every day millions of your cells are dividing, that's millions of infringements!

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Sure, people like to invent and create new things. But this is isn't a binary situation. There wasn't much incentive that patents could have provided for the invention of something like the wheel. But there are all kinds of inventions that simply would never have been made were it not for many millions of dollars spent on the effort, money spent with the intent of reaping a return based on the exclusive use of the results.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse yet, (and bringing the discussion back home to humans), could a human be charged a license fee for reproducing (having children) simply because they paid for a medical treatment that involved gene therapy which becomes part of their DNA?

Realistically the alternative is that your gene therapy will include many, many useless changes to make it hard for competitors to reverse-engineer the desired change.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh after nearly twenty years in the u.s alone you would think there would be some viable evidence. As far as I can tell you ARE jumping to conclusions. "You can't prove this is not dangerous therefore it is dangerous!". There are reasons to dislike GM crops based on patented genes however if I' not misunderstanding what you posted you see the plants themselves as dangerous(If I did misunderstand then well your post is a wee bit hard to read).

Re:Natural vs artificial

[thaylin]

How many years did it take for viable evidence that smoking kills? Also he did not state it was dangerous because you cannot prove it is dangerous, just that you are naive doe thinking it is not dangerous solely on there not having been any visible side effects.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[thaylin]

Prove it. If you cannot prove something you should not present it as fact, but instead opinion.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[AmiMoJo]

The big problem that you just ignored is that when you create crops that are resistant to a certain disease then that disease tends to mutate into something that they are still vulnerable to. Just like excessive pesticide use this creates an arms race, not just between the manufacturers and the diseases but between individual farmers.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[fearofcarpet]

For discrete molecules, you can only win a "composition of matter" patent on something that does not exist naturally. You can, however, patent a method for extracting, manipulating, packaging a natural product or even a specific use for it. The courts seem to have created a distinction between polynucleotides and small molecules; i.e., awarding a patent for a sequence of DNA is basically the same as awarding a composition of matter patent on a natural product and should not be allowed. If anything, they should treat unique, non-natural sequences under copyright law like we do with patterns of symbols/widgets that represent information. Any idiot can make DNA--I'm doing it right now--but any idiot cannot design a sequence of DNA that folds into a smiley face.

Drug companies may exchange the anion of a salt or use an ethyl group instead of a propyl group, but to get the composition of matter patent, they must prove that the new molecule rises to the level of "intellectual property" in that it changes the properties and is non-obvious to an expert. Over the years, "non-obvious" has been fairly rigorously defined by trial and error and the input of a lot of experts. Thus, I really don't see how the Supreme Court needs to get involved in this case. They are scientifically illiterate and susceptible to irrelevant philosophical arguments about life, evolution, etc. A better fix, IMHO, is to treat all polynucleotides as natural products and only allow patents on the methodology of their isolation/use/etc. If a company really, truly comes up with a crazy break-through based on a heretofore unknown sequence of DNA/RNA, then treat it like a trade secret. It works for Coke.

The current system for awarding patents for what is basically a series of A, C, G T/U that you dug out of a longer series encoded in a polymer unquestionably stifles innovation because it allows companies to block anything involving a particular gene. (They already exclude personal use for obvious reasons, i.e., you can't tell your cells to stop expressing a specific gene.) A trickier issue arises with organisms that have been designed for particular experiments, like a strain of yeast, or a mouse with a particular set of genes knocked out or a bacteria that is programmed to insert a section of DNA from a specific plasmid template. The designers of these organisms put a lot of work into them, but the final product can be cloned, not unlike an MP3 of a song. Unlike an MP3, however, they will do it themselves (given enough Barry White), so you can buy one and then just keep a population going in the lab. So how do you balance the rights of the inventor to profit without competition for a limited time (i.e., incentive) against the slippery slope of patenting entire organisms? Last I checked, they limit these patents to organisms whose genes were manipulated artificially, but it won't be long until humans fall into that category.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[bluegutang]

Should we grant ownership of continents to the explorer who discovers them?
We used to...

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Source please: I disagree that concentrating with is *ALWAYS* bad for society as a whole. None of the major research projects of the 20th century would have been possible without concentrating wealth. That specifically means that none of the medical research or physics experiments could have happened. More dangerously, without concentrating wealth tot he point that coal fired power plants could be built, we would liley still be burning coal for home heating in most of europe. That environemntal disaster would be amazing. On the other hand, the Americas would still be populated by their first nation people, as nobody would have been able to put together enough wealth to fund the trips there.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[CayceeDee]

The worst thing that can happen to crops is that they become easier to farm. To date, the biggest legal case involving the spread of genes was a case where a farmer was re-selling herbicide-resistant seeds patented by Monsanto; pollen from a neighbouring field had spread over to his. But it's not like this affects you, the grocery-buyerâ"if Monsanto had contract terms saying they can sue their customers' customers, no one would do business with them!

Of course, this affects me, the grocery buyer. The increased monopolization and mono-culture of agriculture created by companies like Monsanto does affect me. A great many of the foods I buy are from a limited number of lines which gives companies like Monsanto power over my food choices as they actively work to suppress the growth of other lines. All in the name of profit.
Monsanto doesn't have to have a specific clause saying they can sue their customers' customers. The fact that they have a patent on one particular gene means they can sue anyone who uses that gene without their permission. Which means they can sue their customers' customers for patent enfringement and they have. Over and over again. Suing smaller farmers who can't afford to defend themselves allows Monsanto to put competitors out of business and allows the to get a larger market share of the famland by confiscation of farmland which belongs to people who "infringed their patent."
This affects me by limiting my choices of food products and by creating a powerful monopoly over food which allows them to influence future production and restrict the actions of others. It also creates a very real danger because creating a single monoculture of a certain crop opens up the danger to future diseases for which we don't have a resistance. Monsanto is directly impacting agricultural biodiversity in the name of profit.
I do not have a problem with GMO foods. I have a problem with companies getting a monopoly and then using that monopoly to beat down other producers.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not willing to compromise on certain things (slavery, government banning certain speech it disagrees with, etc.), and this is one of them. I don't really care what benefits society reaps from this immoral mess we've gotten ourselves into.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[wagnerrp]

Also, a lot of people don't understand that genes only spread when they're evolutionary beneficial to the organism receiving them.

Funny thing, because those people would be correct. Genes spread because that's just what they do. Reproduction spreads genes as far and as fast as possible. If you reproduce, you have spread your genes, so the only way to prevent genes from spreading is to cause sterility. Natural selection is a statistical long game. Over many generations, those genes which are not beneficial will have a slightly lower likelihood of surviving to reproduce, and thus will occur in the population with reduced frequency.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[taj]

.
Most genes are on the order of a thousand base pairs. While not insignificant in number, why not just patent all combinations? Whats preventing an organization from patenting all possible 100 base pair combinations? If someone adds a thousand basepairs onto one of your sequences, you can claim they violate your rights.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[CayceeDee]

There is absolutely no way for you to prove this. Just because things happened that way doesn't mean that they couldn't have happened another way. Post Hoc, Ergo Proctor Hoc and all that.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[morgauxo]

Um.. so we are all going to be able to look up our genes online and the information we find will be sufficient for us to make our own tests and treatments?

I'm all for burying the whole 'intellectual property' idea but your statement doesn't make any sense to me.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Luckyo]

Problem: due to massive amount of other factors involved, conclusive evidence of effects would take decades to centuries to gather. Compare: smoking, which was far easier to trace due to clear multi-pathogen route and took decades regarless.

GMO are far more complex as their effects likely lie not in direct invasive pathogen such as smoke but indirect effects.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[silentcoder]

>Um.. so we are all going to be able to look up our genes online and the information we find will be sufficient for us to make our own tests and treatments?

Perhaps, technology can develop in interesting ways. Right now we have projects like folding@home which has already contributed greatly to medical research very closely related to genetics - how well do you think that would have worked if somebody had thought to patent protein-fold shapes they discovered ? How many people would have participated if the results were going to be patented by some company ?

Whose to say that we will not, quite soon, see a similar crowdsourcing application to discover the purposes of genes ? But it won't happen while genes are patented.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[silentcoder]

I postulate that they would have come about in another manner then. The closest we have to a proper experimental control is industries that lack any IP protection, the fashion industry springs to mind, yet every year designers come up with new designs -and make a fortune out of them.
They simply found OTHER ways to make money out of invention and fund the process. Removing the patent protection does't mean removing the financial incentive from those that want (or need) it, it simply means the methodology by which that incentive is satisfied gets changed.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Samantha Wright]

Not as long as most people think.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like patented organisms, you don't have to use them.

I would love to be able to simply "not use" the cancer cells in my body. Unfortunately, I do not have much choice in the matter.

Unless this is a clouded method of telling people they should just commit suicide if their body happens to contain the patented genetic code.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Samantha Wright]

No, I definitely mean no effect on human health. To use a computing metaphor, this would be like arguing solid-state capacitors increase the chance of getting a virus. The argument makes no sense.

Plants are radically different from us. They diverged in evolution fifteen hundred million years ago, and developed multicellularity on their own. As a result they use a completely independent set of growth factors and molecules for intercellular communication. When plants harm people, it is because either (a) the plant has gone out of its way specifically to evolve a defence mechanism, like the cyanide commonly found in many seeds, or (b) the chemical is extremely abundant and causes a bad reaction, such as in gluten sensitivity (which—don't let health food advertising fool you—is a rare and extremely inconvenient mutation that cripples one's ability to extract key nutrients from a source that has been a staple in the human diet for thousands of years.)

But engineering in plants doesn't involve either category of proteins in a dangerous way. Engineering of high-abundance genes is limited to recombining existing plant parts, which has no chance of being harmful, even though it might taste bad. Most work goes into improvements in yields and herbicide resistance (sometimes through directed evolution and not actual direct genetic manipulation.) Most yield changes can be affected by increasing the activity level of a gene—not actually modifying a protein—and the proteins involved in determining yield are at extremely low abundance in the plant relative to other components. Herbicide resistance doesn't involve creating some dangerous antidote, either; it's just a matter of slightly tweaking the way the plant does its business, so that it's no longer vulnerable to whatever the herbicide exploits.

You're in much more danger from the stuff the plant's been sprayed with, which, by contrast, is only subject to approval by humans.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst thing that can happen to crops is that they become easier to farm.

And if you are not even farming that specific crop? They can become a weed that spreads where it is not desired, and which is very resistant to herbicides. If it spreads long enough, it might mutate into something that is not commercially viable to use. Then it'll be a weed even when it grows with the original crops.

To solve this problem, all the genetically modified, extremely resistant crops should have some sort of kill switch. Preferably something that can be used even in combination with organic farming.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Samantha Wright]

That's a good point, but do keep in mind that many crops are genetically compatible with common grasses. A few iterations of cross-pollination would have to occur before the energy requirement to attack the crop would be worthwhile, at which point everyone might very well be reaping (oh no, puns) the same benefit anyway.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, a lot of people don't understand that genes only spread when they're evolutionary beneficial to the organism receiving them.

Wait a minute, I thought you were a biologist?? Genes spread when they're harmless to the organism, not just when beneficial. And the GM genes are in fact beneficial to the organism, otherwise why engineer them?

There are plenty of cases where business practices are doing serious harm to human health—factory farming, for example, is responsible for several serious diseases, some of them incurable—but GM crops really aren't an issue. We simply don't know enough to create a real mess yet.

The first part coupled with the last part is where the fear comes from . We know corporations are headed by sociopaths, we know the law of unintended consequenses, and we just don't trust billionaires any further than we can throw their huge piles of gold.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Samantha Wright]

Fine by me—I'll picket right alongside you, as long as we make sure we have the right thing on the sign. Crop monoculture is a very under-appreciated threat to human survival.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Samantha Wright]

Plants have such a high mutation and reproduction rate that every single-point mutation is tested across their vast genomes. A neutral gene that conveys no benefit or detriment will disappear in a few years; a burdensome gene that adds stress (i.e. most genes) but conveys no benefit will be selected against more quickly. It may spread initially, but it won't keep spreading forever. You see the same thing happen in antibiotic-resistant bacteria when there are no longer antibiotics available to resist, albeit much more quickly.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Samantha Wright]

Monsanto thought of that. It's widely hailed as one of their worse ideas.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Samantha Wright]

Jeez, relax. Neutral genes mutate and die out after a little while because there's no point in keeping them around (they may even be slightly burdensome.) My honest opinion is that these genetic engineering programs are pointless, since they'll simply cause the environment around them to attain corresponding levels of aggressiveness. Higher yield? More for pests to chew on! Herbicide resistance? Herbicide-resistant weeds!—even if these genes couldn't spread to them.

It's all very foolish, but engineered plant genes as a general rule are not hazardous to human health. If I were writing a paper right now I would say that there "is no evidence they affect human health" because you can't write a paper without covering your butt in every conceivable way, but the truth is that plants have been evolving for a billion and a half years separately from us, and they have had no problems killing us when they wanted to. We took all that junk out through domestication, and the kinds of meddling we've been doing are not in areas of the plant genome where this could be a real problem.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. When a scientist 'discovers' and names a new species of plant and/or animal, bacteria, etc., do they patent it? Do they gain any control over the use, manipulation, sale, etc. of the organism? Well, then, let's end this idiotic copy of the idiocy of idiotic software patents in the genetic realm. Patenting 1's and 0's is as absurd as patenting A's, C's, T's and G's...etc., etc.
And of course, nobody knows if the particular sequence(s) in question already exisited in the past, have become extinct, etc., etc. Patents on software and genes should never have been allowed in the first place, and should be immediately abolished, if we want technology to advance.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Enigma2175]

I postulate that they would have come about in another manner then. The closest we have to a proper experimental control is industries that lack any IP protection, the fashion industry springs to mind, yet every year designers come up with new designs -and make a fortune out of them.
They simply found OTHER ways to make money out of invention and fund the process. Removing the patent protection does't mean removing the financial incentive from those that want (or need) it, it simply means the methodology by which that incentive is satisfied gets changed.

The fashion industry has IP protection and there are regularly lawsuits regarding fake merchandise. For example, here is a story about Coach being awarded $8 million for trademark infrigement and unfair competition. I think your point is valid but your example isn't.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The fashion industry is a really poor example - it doesn't take millions of dollars of R&D investment to come up with a new dress and even then the amount of innovation in clothing design is pretty limited as it still has to fit a human body. Anything resembling R&D in fashion has been in the development of new materials like gore-tex, rayon and nylon, and of course those were patented.

They simply found OTHER ways to make money out of invention and fund the proces.

I'd like to believe that idea, but so far the evidence for it is basically non-existent.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[silentcoder]

>The fashion industry has IP protection and there are regularly lawsuits regarding fake merchandise. For example, here is a story about Coach being awarded $8 million for trademark infrigement and unfair competition. I think your point is valid but your example isn't.

Wrong. Under the Berne convention certain industries are specifically excluded from all IP laws - notably clothing and food - thus fashion design and recipes cannot be patented or copyrighted. What does exist is trademark protection NOT on the designs but on the logos and brands. You can make all the inflatable running shoes you want, but you cannot put the Nike logo on them.
Trademark laws, of course, do not EXIST to protect companies at all - their purpose is to protect CONSUMERS from FRAUD. So that if you buy a product you can be reasonably sure that you get what you paid for. This is why on fashion it applies to the logo but NOT to the design. Knock-off handbags that look exactly like a Louis Vitton are perfect legal, but if you put a close replica of the L.V. logo on the clasp that is NOT legal.

Indeed, that is part of how the fashion industry DOES make money - exclusivity of brand. The real L.V. bag costs a LOT more than the knock-off, many people are quite happy to pay that difference for a sense of "owning the real thing" - but exactly because so many people cannot afford the real thing - that's EXACTLY why the knock-offs (assuming they have a different logo) are perfectly legal.
There is no legal protection against the copying or replicating of items considered basic requirements to live - such as clothing or food.
I daresay that medicine OUGHT to fall under the same classification.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[El Rey]

All your children are belong to us! Slavery for the 21st century...

Re:Natural vs artificial

[erroneus]

People like that forget the airplane and the automobile were both made by people who were handy with tools in a garage somewhere.

I even hold that concentration of wealth harms people's health more than these medical advancements help. All this highly processed corn and other grains have resulted in out of control diabetes and other health problems. The industrial farming and industrial cattle and dairy are seriously problematic to the environment and to humanity. And seriously, when you take away those problems from the healthcare industry? You've got a huge decrease in medical tech demand leaving only the worst problems such a cancer which is arguably ALSO related to the concentration of wealth we have.

And when I say concentration of wealth, I am talking about that 1% stuff, not pooling together of money to make bigger things happen.

There is no question that without large amounts of money and/or resources, some science simply couldn't get beyond the theoretical stages. But mostly, that's not the case.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[erroneus]

INB4 "Without massive farming, how can we feed all the people?!"

Answer: The same way we always have -- with individual farmers doing what they have always done.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[ChromeAeonium]

Citation needed, in the form of a primary source please. Are you talking about the small number of lawsuits they have filed against people knowingly and intentionally propagating patented material? Because that's totally different. Plenty of small farms do indeed use GE crops, Monsanto's and other copmpany's, just fine. It is the extreme minority who gets sued, and when it happens it is with reason. I'd love to see someone show me a case where that is not the case, but all people ever seem to be able to do is dredge up cases like the Schmeiser case and the Bowman case where the person being sued was very clearly in the wrong. You are spreading blatant misinformation.

So big players are using GM to push small farms out of existence.

That makes as much sense as saying that restaurant supply companies want to drive small restaurants out of business. Monsanto is not in the business of direct farming any more than John Deere is. you are misunderstanding the supply chain.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[ChromeAeonium]

Shall we grant ownership of asteroids, planets and other celestial objects to the astronomer who discovers them?

Its a massive straw man to act as if patents for discoveries and patents for inventions are one and the same.

What if the changed gene has deadly side-effects?

What if a new patented battery is emitting some sort of deadly radiation? What if a new patented material is diffusing some sort of toxin? What if a new patented vaccine causes autism?

The corporations want the government to assure them their profits, but they don't want to take the risk

You didn't even read what you linked t, did you? That act was to prevent farmers from being forced to destroy GE crops they already bought, not to protect the corporations that sold them. Apparently being anti-farmer is okay as long as the farmers are growing things anti-GMO sentiment disagrees with.

Maybe we should not grant genetic patents at all?

As i said, some of my favorite plants are the result of patents. Maybe you should explain how we would get beneficial things like Honey Crisp apples, Flavor Queen pluots, and glyphosate tolerant soybeans if someone else can simply propagate the plant and undercut the develop, leaving them with the bill, without patents. And might I add that the patents on the first two things I mentioned have already expired and the patent on the third will expire next year...what is wrong with developing something, getting temporary control, recovering the development cost and making a profit to enable future R&D, and the the patent expiring. Explain, exactly, where that system is broken.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[ChromeAeonium]

My honest opinion is that these genetic engineering programs are pointless

I disagree. Sure, there is the issue of running the Red Queen's race here, same as with every other trait related to a biotic factor that we manipulate in plants (for example, the resistance breakdown of late blight resistance genes in tomato, or how hessian flies are overcoming defenses in wheat, both of which were conventionally bred), but my hope would be that better agricultural practices will enable the traits to stay relevant and promote long term sustainability. For example, the use of cover crops, crop rotation/crop diversity, and resistances to herbicides of multiple modes of action, when used in combination, can go a good way to preventing the emergence of resistant weeds. Genetic engineering, or rather biological improvements (since I don't really see how evolutions is going to care if selection pressure is applied via a conventionally bred trait of GE one) is one tool of many, and should be treated as such and used in conjunction with complementary techniques (though unfortunately that can be the case as Bt resistant rootworms and glyphosate resistant pigweed demonstrate). Of course, for something like, say, DroughtGard corn, abiotic factors won't evolve, nor will evolutionary issues apply to GE crops with consumer traits such as Golden Rice or the Arctic apples.

Additionally, I agree 100% with the your other comment about monoculture being a threat to human survival, in fact I take it a step further and argue the we need more species level diversity. I could sit hear and rattle off a few hundred plant species that could be widely cultivated crop species if humanity made the effort...things like teff, safou, oca, chaya, jujube, quinoa, yellowhorn, sago, New Zealand spinach, yacón, goumi, and many many more..., each of which would bring its own contributions to global agriculture. Yet so very few people seem to really care about promoting them. I often find myself as frustrated by people's apathy towards biodiversity as I do their ignorance about biotechnology.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[ChromeAeonium]

The increased monopolization and mono-culture of agriculture created by companies like Monsanto

Monsanto creates the monoculture? That problem has been going on since the dawn of agriculture. If anything, I would suspect that their breeders know as well as anyone the dangers of genetic uniformity and I highly doubt Monsanto wants their products to fail. Their investment in things like Svalbard demonstrate that. Furthermore, there are plenty of lines of many major crops to choose from. Take your pick, there's tons of suppliers.

In my personal opinion the main driver of monoculture is people. Look around. See many people going out of their way to buy crops like amaranth, malanga, mâche, cassabanana, pili nut, or cactus apple? Because I don't. Maybe if people did more to create a demand for true biodiversity we would see more of it. Put blame where it is due; to do otherwise is to do a disservice towards achieving a solution. We are the problem, and the agricultural industries are only reacting to our poor decisions. Do you think anyone is going to invest in something like Job's tears or salicornia or ulluco or Japanese raisin tree if they think it is going to be an economic loss?

A great many of the foods I buy are from a limited number of lines

Which is true even of non-patented crops. You are blaming the wrong thing.

Which means they can sue their customers' customers for patent infringement and they have.

No, they sue farmers who intentionally propagate patented material, not just random farmers. Big difference. If you don't want to get sued, don't do that.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Samantha Wright]

I'm with you on engineering against abiotic factors, but I don't think it's a good plan to put the onus on farmers to rotate and manage crops properly, as with the Bt-resistant rootworms. It seems that unless you're planting the crops yourself, escape and resistance must be expected. That's why I'm so convinced it's all Red Queen scenario.

...as for crop diversity, we don't necessarily need to dig into entirely new species. Ethiopia has loads of unexploited strains of wheat and similar grains that could lend sufficient security. (Short of coating our crops in dead locusts, anyway.)

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Under the Berne convention certain industries are specifically excluded from all IP laws

Berne is solely concerned with copyright law. Not trademarks, not utility patents nor design patents.

Lululemon v Calvin Klein.
Nike v Walmart
List of Under Armor patent applications

Re:Natural vs artificial

[Anonymous Coward]

simple: a patent is NOT a right to profit, it's a monopoly on commercial rights.

Ergo the guy breeding his mice for his own use is in the clear as he's not engaging in commercial enterprise.

(of course I happen to think patents should be abolished al together, every piece of research that studies the issue has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that patents are a net positive effect on the economy. On the other hand there is, for specific fields like software patents, strong evidence to the contrary)

Re:Natural vs artificial

[kconovermd]

If genes can be patented, why not this:

***

Patent Application:

Method for resolving conflicts in large organizations

The conflict resolution of the organization shall be vested in one supreme conflict-resolving committee, and in such inferior conflict-resolving committees as the Board of Directors may from time to time ordain and establish. The members, both of supreme conflict-resolving committee and inferior conflict-resolving committees, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

The CEO shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Board of Directors, shall appoint members of the supreme conflict-resolving committee, and all other officers of the organization, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by policy: but the Board of Directors may by policy vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the CEO alone, in the conflict-resolving committees, or in the heads of departments.

***

The founding fathers of the USA believed that, as they were designing this new republic, they were simply enshrining principles that they believed were found in nature: Natural Law. If you don't recognize the paraphrase, take a look at the US Constitution regarding the Supreme Court.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[volmtech]

Do you want farmers to use more chemical pesticides? Use more fuel and water cultivating crops to kill weeds? Have higher food prices? Then by all means ban GMOs. If no farmer uses them then all farmers are on a level playing (farming) field. We are used to work, Mexicans do most of it anyway, we'll get by.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[volmtech]

As they say, "citation needed". All my research has shone that some farmers deliberately propagated Round Up ready plants by planting commodity grain meant for consumption and spraying the crop with herbicide and then planting or selling the seeds that were produced. They had not bought seed directly from Monsanto or signed a contract but the courts decided that using the benefits of Monsanto's patents without paying was illegal. Anyway most small farms disappeared years ago due to economy of scale, they were to small to be profitable.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[UltraZelda64]

The "organic" growers seem to get by just fine without GMOs. Well, as long as their seed supply is not contaminated by nearby plants of other farmers (hard to tell!). Not to mention, prices for fucking *everything* are already way up and only getting worse. And besides... it makes sense to me to spend a bit more for something as critical to life as, you know, food, so yes--if I could be 100% guaranteed to get non-GMO, non-contaminated groceries, then a slightly higher price would be a fair price to pay.

But that's not what I was talking about anyway, really... I was talking about, at the very least, the government making it MANDATORY that food companies clearly label whether their products are (or contain) genetic modifications. Is that really so hard to do? If you want to talk pesticides, here's one. Fucking legalize industrial hemp and kill the cotton lobbying groups. That wretched crop is just teeming with pesticide use, while its green herbaceous counterpart has nearly none of the problems and even some serious advantages in the textiles produced vs. those produced by cotton.

Re:Natural vs artificial

[volmtech]

The public's mind has been "poisoned" by the fud spouted by anti GMO forces and labeling will be the same as banning. What mother wants to feed her child poison, and every unexplained malady will be attributed to GMOs and manufactures will be hounded out of business. These same kind of fears have hamstrung nuclear energy.

You are correct that people should allowed to consume whatever they want as long as they know what they are ingesting, whether that be GMO foods are other natural (or artificial) compounds. It does seem odd to me many of the same people who protest nuclear power and GMOs risk fines and incarceration to obtain and consume substances that are clinically proven to cause physical harm.

Where does the nonsense end?

[OhANameWhatName]

What value on human life? At what point does money become secondary to life?

Money is just perception and power, if human health can't be exempt from the pull of money then what can be exempt? The health of the environment has become secondary to calculating who owns it, and now human health is directly subordinate to ownership and control. At what stage in human evolution do people with common sense stop and say "If we don't stop behaving like crazy people, we're going to become extinct".

Because that's where this ends.

Re:Where does the nonsense end?

[ancientt]

I didn't really think I had decided where I stood on this issue until I read that. Thanks, now I know.

Money isn't just perception and power, it is a method of measuring the value of goods and services for the purpose of exchange. It seems almost stupid to have to say it, but it's the overlooked point here.

The absuridity that medicine and by extension human health shouldn't have a monetary value should be obvious to anyone. To say anything else is to say that doctors and researchers should either not exist beyond voluntary efforts. Do you honestly think that you should be able to get treatment for anything at no cost to you regardless of the cost to the people who provide it? Do you honestly think there should be no monetary incentives to learn to practice and regulate medical practice? Do you honestly believe there world would be a better place if nobody was allowed to profit from researching how to produce better medicine?

I want to live in a society where I and those I love can get treatment for illness that is expensive to provide. There would be far fewer options and far less general wellness if there were no monetary incentive to provide it. I might have a genetic time bomb ticking away in me right now that will either kill me, drastically reducing my ability to contribute to society, or be cured depending entirely on who has incentive to find a cure. If you successfully kill the incentive for the research necessary, then you're partially responsible for killing me.

Now it might be that the medicine necessary to cure my genetic time bomb would be so expensive to research and produce that I'd die for my inability to pay for it, but the other scenario is that I'd have no chance at all. Maybe it's not an all or nothing choice. Maybe the incentives are weighted to high and we should have better laws to balance the incentives for medical research, study and medicine production. Maybe it's common sense to consider how to best regulate that balance.

To say "human health can't be exempt from the pull of money" is to say that no amount of research or practice is worth paying for and it is better to let people die than to place value on that work.

Because that's where this ends.

Re:Where does the nonsense end?

[silentcoder]

There's a difference between "shouldn't have a price" and "doesn't have value". Nobody says a doctor can't get paid - but what most people outside the USA has realized is that it's tantamount to murder to demand that sick people need money to be allowed treatment, to give insurance companies the power to deny a life-saving claim under ANY circumstances.

What most countries outside the USA has done to address this is institute single-payer universal healthcare. And apparently this is one case which absolutely disproves the claims of free-market fundamentalists because these "socialist" (as they are called by Americans who don't know what the word means) medical systems are MUCH higher quality than your for-profit model (the USA's healthcare industry isn't even in the top-10 -it's number 37 worldwide) and tellingly the most vulnerable people in society show the greatest benefit (for example - they all have far lower child-mortality rates) and worst of all - they all manage to do so while spending FAR less money in total on health-care than you do.
When you DO in fact get better quality, for a lower total cost, from sharing the cost through taxes, that's a perfect example of something the market CANNOT provide better.

In fact, health-care is logically the stupidest thing in the world to make subject to market forces. A sick person is by definition in-capable (or at least less-capable) of earning an income - and therefore less capable of paying for health-care. The only free-market answer is insurance - and since an insurance company is always incentivized to deny every claim and in healthcare you don't HAVE to be right - you just need to deny it LONG enough for the patient to die, that has made sure that a great many people who could have lived have been killed - people who HAD insurance, who paid their premiums, who got sick - and died from a curable disease because all of a sudden their insurance company just started making up excuses, safe in the knowledge that the stiffed customer won't live long enough to sue them.
As if that's not bad enough - you THEN also allowed them to deny service to people capable of paying based on ludicrous crap - so the only people who could GET insurance to begin with was those least likely to ever need it, so the insurance companies could run the ultimate protection-racket.

Just imagine for a moment living in a world where insurance companies was as scared of not paying a claim promptly as you are of missing a premium... that's the ONLY world where a free market healthcare system is NOT a disaster, and it exists ONLY in your imagination.

Monsanto?

[grilled-cheese]

If they were to rule out gene patents in humans, I wonder what that would do to Monsanto and the rest of the GMO industry?

Re:Monsanto?

[Seraphim_72]

Douse them in legal Roundup?

Re:Monsanto?

[the eric conspiracy]

Um the genes the Monsanto has patented are not naturally occurring.

Re:Monsanto?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not true, the genes they use are naturally occurring, just not in the organisms that they use them in.

Re:Monsanto?

[bitslinger_42]

Conversely, if they uphold human gene patents here AND grant Monsanto the win in their GMO case (looking into whether naturally-occurring offspring of parents with patented genese are unauthorized derivative works, and therefore violate the patent-holder's rights) would that mean that people could no longer reproduce legally in this country?

Re:Monsanto?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. Then a gene therapy bomb will be exploded over all major US cities. Soon, we will have fruits and vegetables growing off our arms and legs. We will also have the ability to feed of sunlight. But since you can now eat your own food, you will have to pay a royalty just to say alive. Because Monsanto and the military complex own the patents. That's right bitch!! They own your ass, and your fruits and veggies too!

Re:Monsanto?

[Anonymous Coward]

Life becomes sane when you accept the insanity. -Anon

Re:Monsanto?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit misquoting me!

Short answer: No

[Anonymous Coward]

Long answer: Hell no.

Wrong approach

[guspasho]

All the arguments in the summary are economic ones. Creating monopolies, raising prices, and market distortions are what patents are for. It's a reward to the creator that is supposed to drive creativity and innovation.

The real argument against gene patents is that they shouldn't be patentable in the first place. They are natural phenomena, not inventions.

Re:Wrong approach

[meta-monkey]

Natural phenomena? Wrong argument, lefty. Our genes were wholly Created six thousand years ago by Our Lord in the image of His Holy Sequences. Hence, no human can claim invention on a gene in the face of Divine Prior Art.

Re:Wrong approach

[the eric conspiracy]

What is patented is the isolated gene, which is not a natural product.

Every patented composition is in fact a transformation of naturally occurring substances. The so-called gene patents are no exception.

Re:Wrong approach

[Theaetetus]

All the arguments in the summary are economic ones. Creating monopolies, raising prices, and market distortions are what patents are for. It's a reward to the creator that is supposed to drive creativity and innovation.

No, it's not. Patents have nothing to do with a reward - the invention is likely commercially valuable anyway, which is their reward for it. Rather, patents are a grant in exchange for public disclosure, as an incentive to destroy trade secrets. For example, here, they could've set up a lab that tested for the gene as a service, with you shipping DNA to them and them responding with a "yes, you're susceptible to this type of cancer" or "no, you're not", without ever letting on which sequence they were actually looking for. With sufficient security and NDAs in place, that trade secret could last for decades. Other researchers would have to waste time searching for the same sequence... and many of them would also set up competing labs, also maintaining the sequence as a trade secret. That's inefficient, both from the constant re-researching, and because the secret could be out of the public domain for much longer than a mere 20 years.

The real argument against gene patents is that they shouldn't be patentable in the first place. They are natural phenomena, not inventions.

However, the gene doesn't exist in nature on its own, but only as part of a full strand of RNA. It's like if they figured out how to make a monopole - should that be patentable? Sure, magnetic poles exist in nature and magnetism is a natural phenomenon, but you can't ever find just a north pole or just a south pole in a material, and making one would be an incredible advance.

The test

[swillden]

IMO, all of the comments and discussion about whether genes are inventions or discoveries or natural or artificial are completely irrelevant.

The purpose of the patent system is to advance the useful arts and sciences. Given that there is obviously a lot of scientific (and commercial) value in identifying the functions of particular parts of our genetic code, that's something we want to encourage. Patents are supposed to do this by encouraging research results to be published so that other researchers can use them for inspiration and as building blocks. If that's not happening, then patents aren't providing any value.

So, a very simple test: If researchers routinely use the patent database as a source of inspiration and a place to find tools to solve specific problems, and are very willing to look for and license patents that help them make progress, then they're good and useful. If, however, patents are an obstruction, if researchers actively avoid looking at patents to avoid possible treble damages from willful infringement, or if they block useful avenues of research, then they're not providing any value and should be discarded.

The question of whether something is invented or discovered is just semantics with no real impact on whether or not it's useful or whether or not patent protection will accelerate or slow progress in the field.

Re:The test

[mkiwi]

So, a very simple test: If researchers routinely use the patent database as a source of inspiration and a place to find tools to solve specific problems, and are very willing to look for and license patents that help them make progress, then they're good and useful. If, however, patents are an obstruction, if researchers actively avoid looking at patents to avoid possible treble damages from willful infringement, or if they block useful avenues of research, then they're not providing any value and should be discarded.

I think regulated FRAND patents would be necessary if you had any patents on genes at all. Unfortunately, that means there will be special interest groups that will try to carve exceptions in to the regulations (and the laws supporting them). However, managed properly, FRAND could work for genes that are deemed patentable because the government can make sure the barrier to entry is low enough so that there's no Apple/Samsung/Motorola crap going on.

Re:The test

[mkiwi]

One international body overseeing the biggest markets would probably help, too.

Re:The test

[Kjella]

That's nice, but you should probably give that speech to Congress not the Supreme Court. The court only cares if Congress stays within their constitutionally granted power, not if they're doing it smart or even right. After all it's not hard to argue that since patents are valuable it is incentive to create patentable inventions. It might not work that well in practice but the Supreme Court isn't going to overrule Congress on a thing like that.

Re:The test

[steelfood]

The question of whether something is invented or discovered is just semantics with no real impact on whether or not it's useful or whether or not patent protection will accelerate or slow progress in the field.

Perhaps not the field per se, but if patents were granted for mere discoveries instead of inventions, then society itself will fall apart. Do we owe Higgs royalties for "discovering" the Higgs Boson? Or perhaps we owe them to CERN, whose LHC actually did the discovering?

Patenting discoveries does not lead to the promotion of the useful arts and sciences in any situation. Instead, it leads to extreme corporatism.

Re:The test

[Theaetetus]

IMO, all of the comments and discussion about whether genes are inventions or discoveries or natural or artificial are completely irrelevant.

The purpose of the patent system is to advance the useful arts and sciences. Given that there is obviously a lot of scientific (and commercial) value in identifying the functions of particular parts of our genetic code, that's something we want to encourage. Patents are supposed to do this by encouraging research results to be published so that other researchers can use them for inspiration and as building blocks. If that's not happening, then patents aren't providing any value.

So, a very simple test: If researchers routinely use the patent database as a source of inspiration and a place to find tools to solve specific problems, and are very willing to look for and license patents that help them make progress, then they're good and useful. If, however, patents are an obstruction, if researchers actively avoid looking at patents to avoid possible treble damages from willful infringement, or if they block useful avenues of research, then they're not providing any value and should be discarded.

That's only a good test if researchers never published anywhere else. As you note, patents encourage research results to be published, but there's nothing that says that the publication must be the patent. Rather, patents eliminate the necessity of keeping trade secrets, where you wouldn't publish anywhere. By getting the patent, you are free to publish as much as you want, without losing any exclusive rights to the invention.

Specifically, without patents, researchers at pharma companies wouldn't be publishing white papers or scientific articles, since their employers would have them under highly restrictive NDAs. So, the very simple test would be whether researchers use any database that includes information that is also covered by one or more patents for inspiration or as a place to find tools to solve specific problems - or, conversely, how often do people get a patent and publish the information elsewhere, and how often are those "elsewhere" locations mined by others?

I am a patent attorney (and yes, I realize that you're going to claim I'm biased, but realize that doesn't change the validity of my argument). The latter happens constantly - in fact, we're frequently asked to draft and file a patent application quickly because the inventor is about to publish a paper, submit something to a journal, give a public talk at a convention, etc. Without patents, their employers would prevent all of those public releases.

Re:The test

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

That's nice, but you should probably give that speech to Congress not the Supreme Court. The court only cares if Congress stays within their constitutionally granted power, not if they're doing it smart or even right. After all it's not hard to argue that since patents are valuable it is incentive to create patentable inventions. It might not work that well in practice but the Supreme Court isn't going to overrule Congress on a thing like that.

After the first sentence and before the last sentence, everything you said is absolutely true, but it all sums up to absolute bullshit.

The basic patent case history is laid out. Many in the Constitiional Convention did not want to give Congress the right to grant patents. The final language in the Constitution is IIRC, Congress has the right to grant patents "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" IIRC the phrase correctly. SCOTUS can look at a certain type of patent and decide it does not "promote ..." and declare the material unpatentable. Granted it uses a very light hand for this, but it does enter the fray
at times.

Re:The test

[VortexCortex]

IMO, all of the comments and discussion about whether genes are inventions or discoveries or natural or artificial are completely irrelevant.

The purpose of the patent system is to advance the useful arts and sciences. Given that there is obviously a lot of scientific (and commercial) value in identifying the functions of particular parts of our genetic code, that's something we want to encourage. Patents are supposed to do this by encouraging research results to be published so that other researchers can use them for inspiration and as building blocks. If that's not happening, then patents aren't providing any value.

So, a very simple test: If researchers routinely use the patent database as a source of inspiration and a place to find tools to solve specific problems, and are very willing to look for and license patents that help them make progress, then they're good and useful. If, however, patents are an obstruction, if researchers actively avoid looking at patents to avoid possible treble damages from willful infringement, or if they block useful avenues of research, then they're not providing any value and should be discarded.

That's only a good test if researchers never published anywhere else. As you note, patents encourage research results to be published, but there's nothing that says that the publication must be the patent. Rather, patents eliminate the necessity of keeping trade secrets, where you wouldn't publish anywhere. By getting the patent, you are free to publish as much as you want, without losing any exclusive rights to the invention.

You are assuming that folks don't invent things all the time and just never think them novel enough to patent them. For instance: Most of the software patents granted infringe "undisclosed" prior art -- It's just that the prior art isn't "disclosed" because no one thought removing expired indices from a hash table while you traverse it was innovative enough to get it patented, or cared to. However, Linux was threatened with just such a bogus patent. Point being: There is no risk to disclosing -- Crap has already been disclosed and is even in use; In this case, In Nature.

Specifically, without patents, researchers at pharma companies wouldn't be publishing white papers or scientific articles, since their employers would have them under highly restrictive NDAs. So, the very simple test would be whether researchers use any database that includes information that is also covered by one or more patents for inspiration or as a place to find tools to solve specific problems - or, conversely, how often do people get a patent and publish the information elsewhere, and how often are those "elsewhere" locations mined by others?

Pure unabashed speculation on your part. I can't believe you posted that. You clearly don't apply the methods of rationality in your thinking processes. Consider the following: Where is your proof that without the patents the researchers wouldn't be publishing? You have ZERO evidence to support your claim. This may have been true for some things hundreds of years ago, but I think you grossly underestimate the skill of today's reverse engineers. I mean, really, are you daft? There is a whole market of "generics". Consider for a moment the Automotive and Fashion industries. Neither is allowed copyright or design patents, and yet they are both very innovative in design, and the designs are their core selling point -- The sleek and stylish commercials with no information on build innovation or even Cubic Liters of engine size are proof enough that unprotected designs still sell quite well. Here we have two data points that are in direct opposition to your claims. You have ZERO evidence to support your claims. It would be irrational NOT to run the damn experiment at this point and see whether or not the patents are actually beneficial rather than just assume they are: Abolish Patents, and l

Re:The test

[VortexCortex]

s/resting/restricting/

Re:The test

[Anonymous Coward]

... commercial value in identifying ...

Now pharmaceuticals don't make genes. They pull apart RNA/DNA and see what was always lying there. Looking is not a process and can't be innovative. After looking, the purpose of a gene has been identified and has commercial value. Now big pharma want to eliminate commercial value for everybody else. A problem since anybody ( with suitable tools) can pull apart RNA/DNA. So giving the first to look a patent for what they saw, makes gene research a simple land-grab.

... can use them for inspiration ...

After paying a license fee, you mean. The patent owner now has a civil-law monopoly on that process.

... If that's not happening, then patents aren't providing any value ...

It depends on what the patent owner considers valuable. It may be very different to 'advance the useful arts and sciences', such as, make more money.

... If ... patents are an obstruction ...

So the government sells patent rights, then withdraws those rights from everyone. While egalitarian, I doubt anyone (rich) will agree to this level playing field. Obvious suspects are those with 'weaponized' patent portfolios, and the last couple of buyers.

Re:The test

[Theaetetus]

Pure unabashed speculation on your part. I can't believe you posted that. You clearly don't apply the methods of rationality in your thinking processes. I mean, really, are you daft? You are blinded by your profession to the point you don't even realize YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support your beliefs, and are merely parroting whatever bullshit means your life hasn't been wasted harming society. I feel bad for you. You should quit your job before you wake up one day, realize I'm right, and kill yourself. Your kind (the willfully ignorant) disgusts me.

Hi, troll. If you want to have a rational debate, go back and remove all of the above and its ilk from your post. I don't waste my time with assholes.

Re:The test

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, way to go "na-na-na can't heary ya"

hear let me clear it up for you by removing the emotional parts you're unable to ignore:

Pure unabashed speculation on your part. You don't even realize YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support your beliefs

Re:The test

[Anonymous Coward]

go back and remove all of the above and its ilk from your post

Hi retard, posts on /. are not editable.

I have a question

[Tastecicles]

If 96% of all human DNA is considered "junk" (as was the claim sometime in or around 2004), why the rush to claim it? In the interests of rampant capitalism? And why the reversal of that claim in 2011?

Fuck you, you go play your own games, I'm taking my marbles and going home. When the rivers are dry, the trees are dead and the animals starving, the fields fallow and the supermarkets empty, the skies empty and the oceans sterile; then perhaps you'll realise that YOU CAN'T EAT MONEY. Go do something fucking useful like plant some fucking potatoes. DO SOMETHING USEFUL FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY OR GET THE FUCK OFF MY PLANET.

Re:I have a question

[Anonymous Coward]

If 96% of all human DNA is considered "junk" (as was the claim sometime in or around 2004), why the rush to claim it?

People claim junk all the time. Sometimes they manage to convert it into something of value to others. Sometimes it is only of value to them.

Also, "junk" DNA is a _technical term_, and not an assessment of the quality of the DNA. If I could theoretically "cut out" all of your junk DNA and reassemble your chromosomes with only 100% non-junk DNA, and you would not live. The "junk" DNA does serve purposes, just not purposes that directly encode proteins. Perhaps there is something novel in the application of those purposes; however, even if it were so, that's not a legal opinion, nor an educated basis for determining anything that should guide our environment.

Finally, your last sentence is 100% appeal to emotion. I need not say more.

more trivia

[Anonymous Coward]

will Justin Bieber say something today?

who the fuck cares, news is useless shit to make you pissed off.

fuck everything

Status: Closed

[Anonymous Coward]

> Monopolies on genetic testing have raised prices and reduced patient options.'"

Not A Bug
Works As Intended
Status: Closed

Patented Gene Tests Will Still Be Valid

[Anonymous Coward]

This may end up being a big nothing as this case is only addressing the patenting of the genes themselves. The company in the original lawsuit still holds the patents to the tests that find the gene mutations, which is not a part of the case before the Court.

No way

[Anonymous Coward]

No nothing in my body should be patented.

Does anyone really believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

that the court that gave us such anti-corporation decisions like Citizens United and Eminent Domain will side against the corporations again? The Supreme Court will do nothing that will against corporations. Especially since Scalia is on the court.

Re:Does anyone really believe...

[moeinvt]

It's not a question of siding with/against corporations. It's a question of deciding what powers the federal government has or does not have.

The Citizens United decision stated that the government could NOT make it illegal for a group of people to run political advertisements. The First Amendment is very explicit about laws infringing on free speech. That decision should have been 9-0.

FYI, Scalia was part of the dissent in the Kelo v. New London case. i.e. arguing that the government did NOT have the power to seize private property for the benefit of a corporation.

Does the government have the power to grant a patent on genes? I wish they didn't, but based on The Constitution Article I. Section 8, I would say "Yes". However, this is a power granted to Congress. I think they would be well within their power to invalidate patents on genes.

No biotech patent thickets

[Grond]

"Those patents have created "patent thickets" that make it difficult for scientists to do genetic research and commercialize their results. "

Except that empirical research shows that gene patents have not created thickets or impeded genetic research or the commercialization of that research. See John P. Walsh, Charlene Cho, and Wesley M. Cohen, Patents, Material Transfers and Access to Research Inputs in Biomedical Research , Final Report to the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-Related Inventions (2005) ("our results suggest that commercial activity is widespread among academic researchers. However, patenting does not seem to limit research activity significantly, particularly among those doing basic research.")

Re:No biotech patent thickets

[Anonymous Coward]

From the paper
" Nineteen percent currently receive industry funding for their research (accounting for 4% of their total research funding)"
or put another way 0.76% of the funding for the group including those who do not receive funding, which is hardly a striking contribution.
"Only 1% of our random sample of 398 academic respondents report suffering a project delay of more than a month due to patents"
but no apparent idea of how many researchers did not start research on a gene because of patents.....

This exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

This exactly. The genes aren't patented. Doing something novel with them is what's being patented. These patents are truly the only thing that allows the scientists doing the research to monetize the results. That, in turn, has substantially increased the number of folks doing research and publishing that said research. Without the forced publication of patents, a lot of this research will be locked away in corporate black boxes that are treated as trade secrets.
Wile the patents system has flaws, doing nothing would be much worse.

Re:This exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are not patenting doing "somthing" with a gene but doing *anything* with a gene so long as it is linked to a certain disease eg cancer.
That is the problem!
If it was just a single specific diagnosis or treatment or a new modified version no one would care.

Re:This exactly

[Y-Crate]

This exactly. The genes aren't patented. Doing something novel with them is what's being patented. These patents are truly the only thing that allows the scientists doing the research to monetize the results. That, in turn, has substantially increased the number of folks doing research and publishing that said research. Without the forced publication of patents, a lot of this research will be locked away in corporate black boxes that are treated as trade secrets.
Wile the patents system has flaws, doing nothing would be much worse.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree here.

Monetize a specific treatment, don't monetize the idea of treatment - it's incredibly unethical and immoral.

Re:This exactly

[silentcoder]

>Without the forced publication of patents, a lot of this research will be locked away in corporate black boxes that are treated as trade secrets.

False, the vast majority of genetic research are done by universities and the vast majority of it is funded by taxpayer funds. The dumbest law in US history may be the one that says you can take the results of research done with taxpayer money, patent it and start a new private company to monetize it.
No, when the citizens pay for research, they have a right to public domain use of the results.

Please Don't tar all diabetics with the same brush

[StueyNZ]

Not all people with diabetes have Type 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mellitus_type_1

Re:We need COMMUNISM!

[Opportunist]

I dunno, but more and more I'd prefer the bumbling, inefficient and somewhat foolish attempt at controlling their subject's life to our highly efficient, market driven efforts.

Re:Please Don't tar all diabetics with the same br

[Tastecicles]

I am perfectly well aware of this, several members of my family, myself included, are type 1 or type 2 (I am type 2)

Re:Points at Supreme Court

[hendrikboom]

Chi?

bet

[shentino]

I bet that the special interests will have too much at stake to let this be overturned.

I expect a swift congressional override in such a case.

Re:bet

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

I bet that the special interests will have too much at stake to let this be overturned.

I expect a swift congressional override in such a case.

Congress does not have the power to determine if something is patentable. Only SCOTUS has the power to do that. If SCOTUS rules something is not patentable, then the Constitution would have to be modified to make it so. In other words it would take an amendment. Do you know how hard it is to amend the constitutiion?
Hell the possibility of one amendment even started one of the bloodiest wars in history, and the bloodiest in US history.

The definition of insanity

[s.petry]

While I don't disagree with your point, it is a secondary issue. Correctable when people stop voting for career politicians and start voting in functional members of society. As Socrates stated, "the only people that should be representing people in the Republic are those that don't wish to be in politics.

Yeah yeah, not likely any time soon but if enough people spread the message it can and will happen.

Astronomy Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

If human genes can be patented because they are hard to "look at" I am going to patent looking at the Andromeda Galaxy through a telescope. I fail to see the difference other than one is a bit harder to do.

Intentional nonsense?

[ancientt]

Oops, I wrote "should either not exist beyond voluntary efforts." when I should have written "should either not exist beyond voluntary efforts, or be compelled against their will."

I've been bothered by a theory lately that some people, politicians in particular, may be manipulating public perception. What if there are people who recognize that a position is popular that they disagree with for really good reasons and act like they're in favor of the position with the intention to deliberately lose the public debates on the topic? My post above would be an example of me falling for such misdirection. What if "OhANameWhatName" and I were on opposite sides of the debate on whether genetic patents should be allowed. I was against them when I started reading but when I thought though his/her argument, I changed my mind because it became obvious to me how flawed the argument against them was. Now I'm in favor of regulated allowance for genetic patents and have made an argument in favor of them despite my initial contrary stance.

The same thing has happened to me on the subjects of AGW (initially against, but flawed arguments have been so effectively discredited that I'm now in favor of the theory) and gun control (initially I tended toward reasonable additional controls but all the misdirection to assualt wheapons and overreaching regulation moved me against it) and texting bans (initially I thought they were reasonable but all the research and bad arguments in favor combined with studies showing their failures shifted me against them.)

My firm belief is that a person should be willing to consider arguments for and against any subject rationally and change their opinions when they learn more if the evidence is sufficient. However, I'm inclined to read and think through the arguments that agree with my opinions first and that makes me subject to manipulation if the arguments that seem to favor my opinion are consistently flawed.

What bothers me is, what if the people who are making arguments that are flawed are only pretending to agree with my initial opinion but making arguments that are intentionally flawed?

Doubtful

[rsilvergun]

Americans side with property, and this is IP (Intellectual Property).

Re:Doubtful

[Anonymous Coward]

But 'IP' is not actually property, and doesn't even resemble other forms of property. Strangely enough, some of the same people who say they want a small government aren't against government-enforced monopolies over ideas and methods.

Still here.

[ancientt]

I'm still here. It's my planet too.

When they stop paying me for going to work I'll find a new job. That's capitalism. (So is doing genetic research necessary to provide better medicine.) Even if the grocery store, mortgage company, utilities companies and Wal-Marts said "take what you need" I'd still find a new job. I'd prefer to work at a Waffle House because I'd enjoy it more and it's frankly easier work. Capitalism doesn't mean that I wouldn't work at all without it, it just means that I do what's more valuable to society with my talents than I'd do without money as an incentive. Plus, I like the option to do what I choose rather than being subject to being told what I must do.

I'm fully capable of planting potatoes (and many other things) since I grew up farming. I don't spend my days doing it because what I contribute doing my job has a much higher value to society. As a result of people like me making the choices that capitalism drives, you and I both live better lives than we would without those incentives.

That doesn't mean I'm incapable of making moral choices on how I spend my efforts. There are much more lucrative options I'm capable of pursuing but choose not to because of my morals. I don't eat money but I eat the things money buys. I recycle but I don't bicycle 30 miles to work because my options in a capitalism driven society make that the more moral choice for me and my family.

(I too have a Caps Lock key.) LEARN TO THINK.

Capitalism isn't inherently evil nor is socialism or pretty any economic system you prefer to name. Evil or just malicious ignorance is common in humankind. Some economic systems make it easier for those bad tendencies in people to have more significant impacts. I'm actually going to agree with you in believing that we should all be subject to a truely enlightened form of governance where our economic contribution is governed by what is actually best for us each and all. When such a thing happens I believe we'll both be better people doing what is best. However, short of the world governance by God himself, I'm stuck in a world where there is nobody I trust to have such power and insight. For now, I believe that the evil of regulated capitalism in a democratic republic is the least evil of options available.

Do you believe there is a better option? Lay off the caps and explain your reasoning because capital letters don't convince me, they just motivate me to argue.

Re:Still here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism isn't inherently evil nor is socialism or pretty any economic system you prefer to name.

Current system is crony capitalism. Not straight capitalism.

Intellectual "Property" is not property, it's protectionism.

Copyright and patents are grants of power from the government that exist purely to override the physical property rights of other people. [My gene splicing system, my memory of the gene pattern, in order to stop me from making copies of that gene you need to take my physical property away.]

For a more easily understood analogy: My Music CD, my blank CD, my CD burner, in order to stop me making copies you need to violate my physical property to watch me and make sure I don't make the copy or confiscate my blank CD after I burned it. This is the major joke of copyright/patent "property."

Re:Still here.

[moeinvt]

The better system is one in which government doesn't steal the fruits of your labor and then use the wealth to pick winners and losers in the economy. A system in which government does not interfere in contracts to benefit special constituencies. A system where private banks do not get the privilege of controlling the money supply. And a system where interests rates are set by the market rather than by a secretive cartel of central bankers.

I would argue that we haven't had real capitalism in the USA since the inception of The Federal Reserve in 1913. What could be more fundamental than the interest rate when making decisions about when and how to allocate capital? Artificial interest rates send confused signals and lead to malinvestments which hurt the economy.

Put the Case in Context

[litehacksaur111]

If you read the case file, the reason this is even going to court is because Myriad Genetics decided to patent the gene for breast cancer. Some Yale researchers got an NIH grant to research breast cancer and they got sued by Myriad for patent infringement. This is absolute bullshit. Most of the information known about genetics and disease was discovered by scientists working in federally funded labs or on grants at universities. If the patent is granted where does this end? Does that mean the small pox vaccine should have been patented and that the WHO was wrong in getting rid of small pox. What about Jonas Salk and polio. What about Tay Sach's disease, hemophelia, Huntington's disease and all the other genetic disorders that were discovered by scientists who did not apply for patents on fundamental knowledge.

incentives to do the right thing.

[deimtee]

You know, it's not a nice thing, but I sort of hope that at least some of the judges are close to women who have had breast cancer.

Re:We need COMMUNISM!

[aristotle-dude]

Only workers soviets can sort this mess out fairly. Laura and I agree, and so do you!

I think you are confused. the soviets were socialists, not communists. Communism cannot exists as a political party as communism abhors a "state" government. Communism is about voluntarily living in a "commune" or "community" and sharing your resources voluntarily out of the common good. Amish settlements are an example of this. Socialism is about a top down power structure that seizes the means of production by force and forces everyone to be "equal" in theory. More often than not, socialist republics have some people who are "more" equal than others.

The long name for the Soviet Union was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or USSR for short.

If past history is any indication...

[sonamchauhan]

Dred Scott v Sandford -- slaves are private property
Roe v Wade -- an unborn child is private property
This case -- your genes are private property, when a company "isolates" them from the human body

Way to go 'Chief Justices' - reassign what is God's, to man...

Re:If past history is any indication...

[alexo]

Way to go 'Chief Justices' - reassign what is God's, to man...

When God shows up with proof of ownership, I am sure that it would be duly considered.

The Dred Scott timeline

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting late and as an AC, so little chance this'll get modded up, but:

My guess is that this current Court is going to bless the patentability of gene sequences. I've had a great deal of second-hand insight into the processes of the federal court system; almost everything is left up to the judges' clerks, and those clerks (with exceptions) are mostly lazy. Even the Supremes' clerks are lazy. Yes, they're generally grads from the most Elite schools. Any of us who have dealt with graduates from the Elite schools, in any field, can recognize how little that's truly worth. They got a federal clerkship, it's on their resume (even if they're only there for a little while), they're golden. They can get a job anywhere.
Subtleties and nuance of law or ethics aren't relevant. It's entirely a matter of providing case law the supports what the judge already thinks. (I've seen that sometimes the judges can be swayed by persuasive argument from their clerks, but I also know that's not true of all judges. Many clerks would lose their jobs if they put case law in front of their judge that contradicts his or her opinion.)
So, back to my subject: Dred Scott? Really?
Yes.
They're likely to give the green-light to gene patenting. Combined with the current Yay-Golden-Age-Again! culture, it's going to contribute to bad things. We've been dissatisfied with the pace of medical research recently? Just wait 'til they're all constantly sniping at each other over every patent, like Google and Samsung and Motorola and Apple, etc.
Fifty years from now (or maybe twenty, since everything seems to be accelerated) it'll be reversed, genomes will no longer be the property of whoever sequenced them, and things might progress again. If we're even still relevant to scientific progress any more.

Re:The Dred Scott timeline

[Genda]

Are you kidding... 80% of the superpac money that shaped the last 2 years of this nation's political elections came from fewer than 200 people. The top 400 richest people hold half the nation's wealth and the top 10.000 hold over 95% of that nations wealth. You think for a second if these people lock up the future of medical technology as well as all the other IP, that they won't lock humanity out cold. If you can't see checkmate in 4 moves, you should get your eyes checked. The race is nearly owned lock, stock, and barrel by greedy, power mad, self serving plutocrats. We take back what is rightfully ours, or there is nothing left to take back.

The future hangs in the balance. We must have the right to become what we may become. Without full access to out genome that will never happen. There is literally no significant portion of the genome that isn't owned by someone. Company's have made ridiculous patent claims on tiny sequences that show hundred or even thousands of times in the genome giving them ownership of wildly unrelated genetic codes in different genes. Researcher in agricultural genomes have laid claim to cow, pig, horse and chicken DNA. Many of those mammal genes also occur in human beings and so these companies have claims on huge swaths of human genome because of the prior ownership of Bovine or Porcine DNA. Its about to become a complete cluster fuck if we don't slap these genetic privateers down right this very moment. We will all pay nothing less than ransom for a future of darkness that can't be painted bleakly enough. Do not let this crime against humanity continue.

May not matter which way the Supreme Court rules

[jonwil]

If the Supreme Court rules against gene patents, the biotech companies making the big bucks off these things may well pressure Congress to pass laws to make such patents legal.

A looming disaster...

[Genda]

Big Pharma and gene patents are doing to the human genome what corporate IP is doing everywhere else, turning the human genome into another economic turf war and locking up innovation and literally costing people's lives. ATTENTION this is not a theoretical conversation. See this deeply disheartening video. If you are not deeply disgusted after seeing that video you should see your health professional to determine if perhaps you are not in fact human. Corporations exist for profit. If it profits them the you or your loved ones die.. you die. Giving them the ability to block life saving medical research, health giving new advances and treatments, holding humanity hostage by laying claim to the genes the make humanity possible, is tantamount to holding the future of everything from aging to curing cancer under the thumbs of people whose only interest is to own the world. This is more than ludicrous. It's positively insane. There are things that are simply too important to allow corporations to control. This is one of those things.

giving a more general meaning to your question

[Anonymous Coward]

- "Will the Supreme Court End Human Gene Patents?"

- No need to. Life will do that, anyhow. ;)

The problem is.....

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I understand SCOTUS has actually been pretty reasonable on patents, the problem I believe is one of the courts favored by the patent holders that simply writes up some off the wall exception to every law and legal determination that gets through. It seems to be a problem that is well known in patent circles but something that no one has the political will to do anything about. Yet another reason "venue shopping" is a detestable act that should be abolished at every level of government.

Link to a gene patent?

[MobyDisk]

Can someone post a link to a Gene patent? Based on a previous Slashdot comment, I was led to believe that the patent is not on the gene, but on the method of testing for the presence of the gene. The latter would be a perfectly valid utility patent. But these articles always act like th patent is on the gene itself. Which is true?

Re:Link to a gene patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are precisely correct. What is patented is a method for determining a predisposition for breast cancer by reading a gene in a particular individual. Slashdot editors should be ashamed of themselves for the FUD headline and every other poster in this thread needs to realize that they fell for it.

Imminent Domain

[morgauxo]

If the courts decide that the genes employees discover on behalf of these drug companies really should be considered company 'property' then so be it. Real property (in the US anyway) is subject to imminent domain. If the government feels that the people 'need' a new road that happens to travel across your property they give you what somebody deems is a fair price for your home and they bulldoze it. If shaving a couple of minutes off of somebody's morning comute is worth disregarding personal property then why isn't saving somebody's life even more so? Instead of giving the 'discoverers' of life saving information an monopoly and the power to decide who lives and dies how about just giving them some cash, an 'attaboy' and then free the information up to help people.

Patent The Test, Not The Result

[cmholm]

Addressing the topic of the upcoming SCOTUS ruling first: the trend towards "patenting" human genes is bizarre. I'm sure there's a fine article out there providing a succinct case history, but it's nutty on the face of it. Using traditional standards, patenting a test to detect a genetic condition would hold water. Patenting the genetic condition makes as much sense as patenting an organ. Is there time for me to patent the human heart, if I come up with a new way of detecting it?

Regarding the parent comment: at first, patenting an artificially created sequence within a human gene seems patentable. However, I seriously doubt it could stand for long, since: a) if it is passed on to offspring, it becomes "natural", and any case law that developed to the contrary would be tantamount to Dred Scott, and b) unless the gene invoked non-organic chemistry, over time it would become difficult to determine whether an instance of the sequence were "licensed", or a natural mutation.

Not recognized

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme court has not followed the law as of late, and been derelect in their duties. My Gene's are mine, and that is just common sense. I do not recognize the U.S. Supreme Court authority contrary to that.

Kidneys

[wcrowe]

I head a good argument about this on NPR this morning. If you isolate the genes that deal with kidneys, it's the equivalent of removing the kidney from the body. Just because you remove the kidney from a body does not necessarily mean you own a patent on it.

Re:A possible answer?

[OldHawk777]

The USSC today defines corporations / institutions as an equal (proxy vote buying) citizen, endowed with inalienable USA Constitutional rights. This agrees with the USA Congress election-district gerrymandering, mandated corporate tax-welfare entitlements, law enforcement and prosecution (RIAA ...) by civil a/o criminal courts, corporate and religious tyranny of economic initiatives and life-quality innovation. IMO: The USSC will award in favor of the corporations / institutions that for decades now fyck US, EU, and others. US as One has degenerated in to US as racing to the last.

Re:I don't know the exploit.

[OldHawk777]

Canals, bridges, roads, standards, libraries ... are built by Governments, in the USA by the will, funds, and demands of the people. Special-Interest-Entitlements [AKA: corporate/religious/plutocrat/aristocrat ... "Institutional Entitlements"] has always been around, but in the last four decades Institutional Entitlements have literally co-opted USA Democracy by all The People with exploitation for very few of the people. We The People pay for infrastructure, entitlements , and Damn Hubris People exploit US like all domestic and foreign enemy.

If we are not better off than we were, and corporate/religious ... institutions always say they will make everything better (including education ), then why do we believe the lies/promises and never judge the failures and exploitation?

offered for sale

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the rules on patentability is that the thing you are patenting may have never been offered for sale. While it was always an abomidable practice people - along with their genes - have been offered for sale since before the beginning of recorded history - and so the genetic cose of any living thing that has been offered for sale should not be patentable in the US.

Discover something already there, get a patent.

[Dabido]

Christopher Columbus: I patent this new land, the West indies in the name of Spain.

Captain Cook: I patent this new land, Australia, in the name of England!

Neil Armstrong: One small patent for a man, one giant royalty bill for mankind for looking at it!!

Patent Infringing Genes?

[robertzaccour]

Can someone sue me if they discover I have patent infringing gemes I was born with and don't know about? This is ridiculous, genes naturally come into existence and should not be considered intellectual property.

Re:I don't know the exploit.

[dwye]

Canals, bridges, roads, standards, libraries ... are built by Governments, in the USA by the will, funds, and demands of the people.

False. Most of the early canals, especially in England, were built by private corporations (just like the railroads). There are still private roads being built in the USA, and most town libraries are owned by local private associations, not the town or county. Not everybody lives in major cities, where the government took over these facilities from the original owners.

At this point

[metaforest]

I recommend that everyone read the transcript of oral arguments.

Myriad claims they deserve patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 cDNA because they knew exactly where to 'snip' the sequence. This is their innovation.

  cDNA (type specification) is little more than a transcription of a DNA sequence from the genome with the 'junk sequences' edited out. The transcription process of the a cell nucleus does this naturally, and it is well known how to extract this naturally edited(de-junked) sequence from a cell culture. After lots of effort Myriad discovered how to isolate BRCA1 and BRCA2 from the 'de-junked' cDNA sequences derived from the subjects DNA. In their relevant patents they claim patentable invention on the grounds that the cDNA sequence of these genes(technically psuedo-genes, or even sub-genes) does not exist in isolation, AND they discovered where to 'snip' the cDNA strand to isolate the sequences at issue.

This is no different than asserting that I can patent a specific region of everyone's liver because *I* 'sweat blood and tears' to figure out where to stick a biopsy needle to extract a useful sample of that region. In effect, anyone (except me) who extracts that specific region of a liver BY ANY MEANS would be liable for patent infringement. I now own a piece of EVERYONE'S liver. Anyone who attempts to take that small piece of liver it out of a host OWES ME MONEY!

Oh and BTW, I get the liver pieces too. So I'll be in the market for fava beans and some nice Chianti too. ;)