Slashdot Mirror


WHO: Intellectual Property Claims Hindering Research On Deadly Novel Coronavirus

New submitter kwyjibo87 writes "The World Health Organization (WHO) publicly expressed dismay yesterday concerning news that intellectual property claims were hindering research on a deadly new emerging virus. Novel coronavirus (nCoV), a member of the same viral genus as the causative agent of SARS, has claimed the lives of 22 people (out of 44 reported infected) and left both researchers and health officials scrambling to develop effective diagnostic tests in addition to possible medications and vaccines against nCoV. Now, however, claims of intellectual property on the new virus are hindering research on nCoV according to the WHO, delaying advancements on tools to prevent further spread of the infection. Stories of intellectual property rights in science hindering advancements in research, particularly in clinical applications, are nothing new; the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments on the validity of patents on the BRCA1/2 genes and has yet to issue a decision. The issue of sharing scientific information in order to promote faster research on emerging pathogens is not limited to intellectual property — a recent article in the journal Nature highlighted a case where Chinese researchers risked having their research scooped after uploading viral sequences to a public database designed aid global scientific collaboration."

32 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. intellectual property by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You freeloaders should be ashamed. It takes a lot of money to do that kind of research, and all these poor, defenseless companies are doing is protecting their investment by patenting the genes they discovered so if and when they choose to further develop it, they will make a reasonable perfectly reasonable 3000% profit on every pill sold.

    Not only that, but I think you're all forgetting a very important point here: This virus kills quickly, and any treatment would only last a few days. Where's the profit in that? Sure, it'll kill you, but you as a patient are worth far less than the guy with the limp dick and a few extra bucks to eat pills to make him hard again.

    If you want the situation to change, you need to get sick with diseases that are treatable but long-term. We're simply not interested in short-term illness, regardless of whether it kills you or not. Any cures or treatments for a short-term illness are purely accidental and you should be thankful we even bothered to develop it and market it! Ungrateful poor people... jeez. Why can't you all just dry up and die?

    Yours Truly,

    Big Pharma

    P.S. I know you're taking Ritalin your friend gave you to do better on the finals. Contact me privately and I can hook you up with a doctor of questionable repute who will give you your very own legal script. Remember: Unless it comes from Big Pharma, it's a Bad Drug(tm).

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:intellectual property by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hear ya' Big Pharma. In order to acknowledge your potential ownership of this IP and the related virus I would like to hereby volunteer to force feed it to you with a rusty funnel until you successfully recall the "share and share alike" lesson you should have learned in pre-school.

      I have a patent on that form of intra-oral medication delivery and since I haven't licensed it for commercial production, you'll owe me $150,000 per rusty funnel used so far by you, henceforce referred to as "John 'Rusty Funnel' Doe, Defendant", $15 million for the rights to use the rusty funnel -- a 1 year limited, non-exclusive license, treble the amount of any profits incurred through the use of the rusty funnel intra-oral delivery system, and $150 million in legal fees due to us being forced to defend our intellectual property.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:intellectual property by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      Oy, what did I tell you about telling on me in public? Not fair!

      You checked the box at your last doctor's visit that allowed your clinic to share your personal, non-identifying information about your condition for research purposes. And since you have now publicly disclosed your medical condition, not me, we can now use your comment and likeness in a public awareness campaign we're launching in your area on male impotence.

      Yours truly,

      Big Pharma

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:intellectual property by catchblue22 · · Score: 2

      The free unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life.

      Einstein, 1952

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  2. Two suggestions by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    1) If the funding for research that led to the "patent" was in any part public, then the Patent needs to be public domain at least for non-profit research. Period.
    2) If the funding for the research was not public, then the Government should pay for the patent, and make it public domain for non-profit continuing research.

    Ether case, The patent should be still commercially viable for commercial purposes.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Two suggestions by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Choice 3. The government declares that research use of the intellectual property is in the public's best interest, confiscates the patent through eminent domain, and invalidates it.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Two suggestions by pmontra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A modest suggestion: if the virus which is of your property kills someone you go to jail. Discounts granted if you own only a few genes. Let's see how long intellectual property lasts once it faces responsibility.

  3. Liability? by seven+of+five · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fine, you knuckleheads want to claim ownership? How about some wrongful death suits?

    1. Re:Liability? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fine, you knuckleheads want to claim ownership? How about some wrongful death suits?

      "You think that one of the biggest, most powerful companies in America is secretly a profiteer who spends his nights beating the tar out of citizens in court... and your plan... is to blackmail this company? Good luck." -- Morgan Freeman

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  4. Just Sue by bobstreo · · Score: 2

    Any survivors/Next of Kin should sue the commercial labs which are claiming patents.

  5. Re:Scooped? by girlintraining · · Score: 2

    I know Slashdot is a US centric site but please remember that there are many non-native-US-English speakers reading it as well.

    There's a website for that problem. And just so we're clear; There's a lot of lingo us Americans don't understand. Calling gas "petrol", for example, or a semitruck a "lorry". Seems just a bit hinky, if you ask me. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to shove off and go do the needful somewhere.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  6. patents vs. research? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought patents did not prevent research that uses the patented material.

    At any rate, allowing patents on discoveries (vs. inventions) is just stupid.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:patents vs. research? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, that was my impression as well. In fact I used to routinely investigate patented techniques in my research when I worked in R&D.

      Ah the frigtarded Courts screwed us over:

      From Wikipedia:

      "In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry." The court also precludes the defense where, regardless of profit motive, the research was done "in furtherance of the alleged infringer's legitimate business." In the case of a research university like Duke University, the court held that the alleged use was in furtherance of its legitimate business, and thus the defense was inapplicable."

      this is disgusting

      The purpose of patents is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

    2. Re:patents vs. research? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

      In fact this really pisses me off. The court of Federal Appeals is supposed to be subject matter experts on patents. Instead they are the maroons who have done more to expand the patent system to cover all sorts of malarkey that should have never been covered.

      When I first heard about establishment of this court I thought it sounded like a good idea because in theory it was going to put an end to crap like venue shopping for patent appeals.

      Well, I was dead wrong about that. These nuts turned out to be more radical than any of the existing venues.

      Arrgh.

  7. COMMUNIST! by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 3, Funny

    WHO==U.N.==SOCIALISM==COMMUNISM

    Sure, maybe IP is *interfering* with scientific research in this case, but so what? If you take down the IP and interfering with corporations maximizing their profit, no one will be motivated to do anything. We'll all just loll around , (if they're people like me) staring at our navel disinterested in the world (if they're people like me) ....We'll be like Old Sick Europe . Then where will ALL of science be? Do you think people are motivated by the mere chance to relieve human suffering ? Do my whores fuck me because they love me???? We need REAL motivation !!!!!

    What's your value system here? Is science for the betterment of mankind , to save human lives and advance the general welfare of people or is its primary purpose to make money for people with money so they'll go on doing science ?

    COIMMUNIST! I SMELL A COMMUNIST!!!!
    If the IP system is pared back, then all progress will cease.

    1. Re:COMMUNIST! by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2

      They tried your idea where nobody wants to make a profit and it failed. Making a ridiculous extremist straw man post doesn't help things. He. Have a look in the mirror. Where did I say no one should make a profit? You guys are all the same. Binary, thinking is all you're capable of. Either we're maximizing profit under all circumstances or it's Communism. I know you meant to diminish my post by pointing out what you thought was my straw man. Too bad you had that gun pointing the wrong way.

  8. Some thoughts about corruption by boorack · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the western world we tend to perceive corruption as simple bribery. In my opinion, this thinking is way to narrow - but it keeps us in a kind of comfort zone, that in western world we have much less corruption than anywhere else. BUT if we add regulatory capture and start measuring corruption (simple bribery plus regulatory capture) in terms of human costs, world starts to look totally different. Broken intellectual property law - in this case hindering efforts to fight off a (potentially) deadly virus - is one of many examples of this. I'd rather call it legalized corruption than involve in debating rights and wrongs of this particular (narrow) issue. The same with patented cancer genes, software patents, financial institutions being out of control, monsanto force-feeding us with their toxic crap, legalized tax evasion etc. All those things are legal! Yet until we won't recognize this as ("legalized") corruption, these things won't be solved as root cause of all of this (regulatory capture) will still be there. It will cost us money, health and ultimately lives until we recognize that western countries - especially US - are propably the most corrupt ones in the world just because of sheer scale of this "legalized" corruption and its effects in terms of human costs. If you include all those banana republics we (western countries) imposed corrupt broken regimes just to steal their wealth, the whole picture looks even more grim. Stop debating rights and wrongs of narrow issues - it plays well to the hand of our corrupt corporate overlords. Get up and start fighting corruption in all its forms, including "legalized" one.

    1. Re:Some thoughts about corruption by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      technically, if it's legalized and in the open then it is not corruption - it is the system working as intended.
      it's better than having corruption, because it could be changed if there was enough public demand for it. with plain old corruption changing it is harder, as it's shady who is allowed to do what and why.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Some thoughts about corruption by mspohr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, it is corruption if the system is not working as intended... and I don't think anyone would argue that the US political system is working as intended. The entire system is corrupted by money where the rich buy the laws they want to make more money. It is very open and somewhat transparent (and thanks to the rich buying the laws they want, it is "legal") but it is thoroughly corrupt.
      Lawrence Lessig makes the case very eloquently here:
      http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re:Some thoughts about corruption by Velex · · Score: 2

      I think that GP was arguing that just because it's legalized and in the open doesn't mean it's not corruption, i.e. the laws themselves are corrupt. Perhaps the distorted worship of obscene wealth in the name of some kind of Randian stark individualism that leads to these laws itself is corrupt.

      Not to get off topic, but it works the other way around, too. Just because the law says marijuana is a highly addictive and dangerous narcotic with no medical application doesn't make it so. Athough perhaps that's another example of corrupt law. In that particular case though I'd argue the history is more steeped in racism and xenophobia than corruption. ymmv

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
  9. Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar by gmuslera · · Score: 2

    They own it? Then they should have it, in their blood. Then we could discuss if we want to cure them or not, after all, we don't want to harm their intellectual property.

  10. Re:Scooped? by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know Slashdot is a US centric site but please remember that there are many non-native-US-English speakers reading it as well. I'm a native English speaker but I don't know what "scooped" means in the context of TFS.

    The term scooped means "first one to get the credit for a discovery". It's usually used in the context of journalism, but the term still works in this case.

    It's just like when French scientists first discovered the HIV virus (or so they claim). They mailed their blood samples to American scientists so the American scientists could confirm their findings and replicate their results, but the exact same American scientists who received those samples and the methodology the French scientists used, just used the same samples and ended up publishing the same results -- claiming the original discovery for themselves (at least, that's the story being told from the French side).

    It's not just a question of ownership, although that's a part of it too, it's also a question of who gets the original credit (or shared credit) for the discovery (since that also determines who ends up getting mountains of public funding and/or royalties). And even public institutions are capable of stealing credit even if there are no patents/royalties involved, since reputation and public funding are just as important to them (as profits are to a private corporation).

  11. Easy way out by Vintermann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I own a bull, and this bull gets loose in a china shop, I'm liable. Why should intellectual property be any different?

    If you own a gene, and a virus is using that gene to kill people, well, it's your duty to stop that virus doing what it's doing, and if you don't, expect to pay damages!

    (But somehow I don't think the champions of intellectual property want the property metaphor to extend that far.)

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  12. If this company claims 'ownership' of this virus by number6x · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Then I think they should be charged with 22 cases of murder. It might not be murder 1, but manslaughter.

    • If a car you owned hit someone, you would be charged.
    • If a building you owned fell on someone, you would be charged.
    • If a pit bull you owned killed someone, you would be charged.

    If you want to 'own' this virus, you get to 'own' the consequences. Corporations are people. Some places have the death penalty for people who commit crimes.

  13. This sounds like... by Molochi · · Score: 2

    Sounds like another issue of national security to me. So they could just take it away if it isn't offered.

    --
    "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  14. I knew it! by machine321 · · Score: 2

    I knew when Microsoft and Novel signed that patent cross-licensing deal they were up to no good! Who knew they were working on a Novel virus?

  15. By their own definition... by FuzzNugget · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are murderers.

    Hey, if you can equate copyright infringement to theft, you can draw the same comparison between willfully withholding information and murder.

    1. Re:By their own definition... by erroneus · · Score: 3

      I don't have any problem with making that definition. Wilful denial of access to information which can save lives is far more important than money -- any amount of money. And we need some laws on the books that will enforce this notion. It's truly sickening how far people will go.

      But you know, I also consider war to be murder. Leaders who risk nothing send people to other places to kill other people and get killed. All the while, telling people lies about "freedom" and crap like that.

  16. Re:Plain rubbish by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 2

    Because we all know that in reality corporations are actually paragons or morality [/sarcasm]

    Corporations are evil in the same sense that sociopaths are, the benefit or harm they do unto others is inconsequential so long as they get what they want. (which in the case of corporations is money, ROI, and market share)

  17. Re:The Takings Clause and the Police Power Clause by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful
  18. Lawyers that are more deadly than the virus by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    The novel coronoavirus are deadly, we know that

    What we did not know --- and thanks to the IP-scandal, now we know --- is how deadly the lawyers are

    The outbreak of this novel coronavirus is at least (so far) somewhat contained --- what I am afraid is, and what all others should too, is that, next time, when there is an outbreak of a far more virulent virus, which spread very fast worldwide, will the world still allowing these deadly lawyers ram their law books into the medical research labs ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Lawyers that are more deadly than the virus by mhajicek · · Score: 2

      They need more effective DRM on the virus to prevent unauthorized copying. Stiff penalties also need to be applied to those who contract the virus without paying royalties.