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."

10 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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".

  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.