Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Come on... seriously now...
No.
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?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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...
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.
Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
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.
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...
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)
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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?
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.
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
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...
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.