Slashdot Mirror


Never Mind the Epidemic, Who Gets Patent Rights For the Cure?

A virus that has so far killed nearly thirty people in seven countries faces a non-medical obstacle to treatment: Patents. Reader Presto Vivace writes with this excerpt from the Council on Foreign Relations: "At the center of the dispute is a Dutch laboratory that claims all rights to the genetic sequence of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus [MERS-CoV]. Saudi Arabia's deputy health minister, Ziad Memish, told the WHO meeting that "someone"--a reference to Egyptian virologist Ali Zaki--mailed a sample of the new SARS-like virus out of his country without government consent in June 2012, giving it to Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam."

135 comments

  1. It's not a patent by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a Material Transfer Agreement that means you agree to some restrictions including sharing / ceding patent rights. (That's OK, it's Timothy, we don't exactly expect accuracy here.)

    But the real answer is 'so what'? Berne Convention, be damned. Countries with a vested interest in this issue aren't going to let some weenie little Dutch lab push them around.

    And they got the material illegally in the first place.

    I'll go back to breathing normally now.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:It's not a patent by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The sequence is data. I don't think patents cover data. You could modify the data, but a patent claim is dubious. Working pi to infinity-2 is data. It's not patentable. My DNA, your DNA, is not patentable. Mod them uniquely, and you're Monsanto.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In line with what I would say. A patent is granted by the government to protect profit. If there is a pandemic of some sort, it is not unheard of for governments to just take the patent themselves for their citizens. I don't know the last time that happened in the US though for reference.

      Either way, if the company refused to license the patent in such a case (before the government takes it), I'm not sure they would have any investors left.

    3. Re:It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blame the submitter, not the self-proclaimed ''editors.''

    4. Re:It's not a patent by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll go back to breathing normally now.

      . . . not if you get the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus, you won't . . . !

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No worries, If we can just raise the sea level a little more the dutch won't be a problem.

    6. Re:It's not a patent by St.Creed · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not patented... *sigh*

      What the lab did was to sequence the genome and then (oooh evil) expect to get paid for that work if someone else wanted to use THEIR work to build something with that. That's the modus operandi of every other genetics lab in the world - they all analyze stuff and then provide results to paying customers.

      The Dutch lab is not blocking anyone from sequencing the genome themselves - that's a problem with *Saudi-Arabia*, they didn't even want to send the virus out to anyone in the first place for fear it would reflect badly upon their country. If the Saudi's sent out the virus to the CDC and other labs, for instance, this issue wouldn't be an issue, now would it?

      The article is completely and wildly off the mark, and the summary is confusing the issue even more, if that's even possible.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    7. Re:It's not a patent by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article is completely and wildly off the mark, and the summary is confusing the issue even more, if that's even possible.

      This is at least an improvement over the previous article on the same subject, which didn't even identify which IP claims were causing problems. But I agree, there is some incredibly sloppy reporting going on here. I realize that the storyline of "evil Western profiteers kill people with patents" is very tempting for lazy journalists and activists, and there are genuine problems with the patenting of gene sequences, but that's not even what's going on here. This is purely a case of bureaucratic infighting and ass-covering, and the article couldn't point to a single instance where Erasmus University actually prevented anyone from researching towards a cure.

    8. Re:It's not a patent by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not a patent It's a Material Transfer Agreement that means you agree to some restrictions including sharing / ceding patent rights. (That's OK, it's Timothy, we don't exactly expect accuracy here.)

      I hate to be the first Slashdotter to defend our editors, but he didn't say "a patent". He said "obstacle to treatment: Patents". And in this case it's 100% right if you read carefully.

      The Saudis don't want the material transferred from their country except by a special mechanism which guarantees them the Patent rights. That is slowing down the rate at which the virus gets to people. The lab which has a sample doesn't want to distribute it without special agreements about patents. Again, this slows down the transfer. If the lab was not motivated by patents then it could simply say "all patents based on this material must be shared freely and without patents", however they don't do that.

      In all cases; if there were no potential future patents involved then the information could be shared easily and quickly. Patents and greed about them are the problem here.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    9. Re:It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a patent application. (And there's the MTA too.)

      http://twn.my/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2013/ipr.info.130515.htm

      "This time, the discussion concerns the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) virus, the subject of serious public health concerns as well as a patent application by the Netherlands' Erasmus University.

      The potential for future allegations of infringement of Erasmus' as yet unpublished claims is causing consternation in research circles, as scientists scramble to understand this new virus, which has a very high lethality rate in reported cases.

      The virus was sent to Erasmus without authorisation of the Saudi government, which has sovereign rights, and which has criticised Erasmus' intellectual property stance."

    10. Re:It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't patent the default genes you sequence. You can patent isolating those genes into unique fragments that are not the whole sequence (the same way you can isolate and refine chemicals) for a therapy. You can patent a new gene that you created that did not exist in nature (hybrid or damaged).

    11. Re:It's not a patent by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Virus data placed under EULA"

      There, happy?

    12. Re:It's not a patent by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the lab did was to sequence the genome and then (oooh evil) expect to get paid for that work

      Fine, so pay them for their work.

      Find out what the researchers and lab techs were being paid hourly, add up the amount of time they spent, add 10% for a reasonable profit and cut them a check.

      They're already amortizing the equipment, so maybe kick in another 1 percent for the cost of electricity and space for the lab. Find out how much of the work was done at publicly-funded institutions and send the Dutch lab a bill for that.

      Patents for gene sequences should not exist. They're going to cause problems far in excess of their value to society.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article says no such thing about Saudis wanting a patent.

    14. Re:It's not a patent by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Your facts get in the way of my getting to use this comment:

      "Ah yes, we're exporting Americanism everywhere."

      Damn you! I wasn't even going to read the article, I was just hoping for somewhere to place that comment. Now I see it's not even valid. Meh... I could probably STILL use it down-thread and someone will either mod it or reply to it. There's something to be said for just reading the summary, it's definitely not fair if you have to go knowing stuff and spouting facts and stuff. That's just not cool, man. It's not cool at all. ;)

      (Thanks for the information by the way, I appreciate it.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:It's not a patent by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Patents for gene sequences should not exist. They're going to cause problems far in excess of their value to society.

      Probably. Anyway, that's not the point here since they didn't patent anything. They're just asking people to sign a very standard MTA that limits their liability in case you decide to use the virus to bump off your neighbour, and gives them a cut of the stuff you develop with it. Everyone is free to re-sequence the DNA and avoid this clause. Except that Saudi-Arabia wasn't sharing any information, and the information sent to the Dutch lab wasn't sent legally in the first place, because S.Arabia wanted to prevent that information leaking too.

      And another thing: Ron Fouchier is the same guy that was burnt to the ground by the US government when he and his lab wanted to publish that dangerous virus recipe in Nature to inform everyone that the mutations could happen in nature by themselves. Is anyone really saying he should now suddenly send off his known-to-be-lethal virus sequence to all and sundry without even limiting his liability? That's incredibly hypocritical and also quite stupid.

      You can't have it both ways, folks. It's either "let him share information" and publish in Nature and Science without having senators screaming he's a terrorist and they should nuke the Netherlands, or "let's not share the information" and have him sign MTA's with everyone to cover his ass.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    16. Re:It's not a patent by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's pretty much spot on.

      As I said somewhere else in this thread:

      "Ron Fouchier is the same guy that was burnt to the ground by the US government when he and his lab wanted to publish that dangerous virus recipe in Nature to inform everyone that the mutations could happen in nature by themselves. Is anyone really saying he should now suddenly send off his known-to-be-lethal virus sequence to all and sundry without even limiting his liability? That's incredibly hypocritical and also quite stupid.

      You can't have it both ways, folks. It's either "let him share information" and publish in Nature and Science without having senators screaming he's a terrorist and they should nuke the Netherlands, or "let's not share the information" and have him sign MTA's with everyone to cover his ass."

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    17. Re:It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Saudis don't want the material transferred from their country except by a special mechanism which guarantees them the Patent rights.

      Er.. not really right, it's a dutch genetics lab that has a sample of the virus, and are making people who use the data or sample sign an MTA (Material Transfer Agreement), that basically says you can't do commercial things with it without paying them, non-comercial research stuff all fine.

      The fishy bit seems to be that the Saudi's didn't seem to want the rest of the world to know they had a little disease outbreak, and it reads a bit like they were trying to supress anything to do with it, and now seem to be making excuses.

      (And none of this stops you taking your own sample from a parient with the virus and doing your own genetic analysis...

      One suspects that you did not read the article... which is normal for slashdot, but given your username I would have expected different ;)

    18. Re:It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see some mechanism wherein people with disease are de-facto patent owners. Sheesh, seems obvious to me. You don't own this stuff, it's in my blood, I own it.

    19. Re:It's not a patent by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      the information sent to the Dutch lab wasn't sent legally in the first place

      So they're claiming rights to something that was obtained illegally. That could be an interesting legal situation.

      Is anyone really saying he should now suddenly send off his known-to-be-lethal virus sequence to all and sundry without even limiting his liability? That's incredibly hypocritical and also quite stupid.

      It would be incredibly hypocritical if anyone was saying that, but since they're not, you're being incredibly disingenuous in attacking this straw man. This is about making a buck off samples of a virus (not the genetic sequence), which, for good measure, they obtained illegally.

    20. Re:It's not a patent by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Boo-boo: strike out "(not the genetic sequence)". They're claiming rights on that too. What's next for "property rights" for scientific discoveries, the developer of a new theory of gravity insisting on everyone signing an agreement before they can use it? Newton and Einstein didn't realize the money they lost by just publishing.

    21. Re:It's not a patent by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2

      The Saudis don't want the material transferred from their country except by a special mechanism which guarantees them the Patent rights.

      Er.. not really right, it's a dutch genetics lab that has a sample of the virus, and are making people who use the data or sample sign an MTA (Material Transfer Agreement), that basically says you can't do commercial things with it without paying them, non-comercial research stuff all fine.

      From this article hare

      The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), to which Saudi Arabia and the Netherlands are parties (as are practically all other UN members except the US), establishes obligations for access and benefit-sharing for biodiversity, including prior informed consent of the providing country and mutually agreed terms for utilisation of the material. These obligations are further detailed by the Convention's Nagoya Protocol, which is presently gathering ratifications for entry into force.

      The situation of Erasmus having obtained the virus and placed intellectual property claim over it without the consent of the Saudi government and without an agreement for benefit-sharing appears to be at odds with the requirements of the Convention.

      Basically the Saudis and the Dutch lab are both fighting over the IP rights.

      The fishy bit seems to be that the Saudi's didn't seem to want the rest of the world to know they had a little disease outbreak, and it reads a bit like they were trying to supress anything to do with it, and now seem to be making excuses.

      (And none of this stops you taking your own sample from a parient with the virus and doing your own genetic analysis...

      I would be really really interested to the reason for this. Your suggestion is possible; Look at the quotes in my other comment though and you see that part of the delay is probably because they simply didn't realise they had a new disease. The most interesting bit though is that it seems that they only just agreed to a new transfer

      “But now... we’ve got an approval to move these samples and they will be shipped for testing,” he said.

      (from this Alarabiya article.) and note this, from the original article (with my emphasis)

      The PIP augments the International Health Regulations, creating a series of understandings that are flu-specific regarding sample sharing, patents, and profits from products derived from viral discovery. Chan's response to Memish's accusations no doubt stems from her concern that the Saudis could invoke provisions of the flu-specific PIP, demanding control over the MERS-CoV samples, patents, and products.

      In other words; the Saudis now believe that they have a legal basis for control, even if they share. Before they were worried about this. And notice, the same article mentions that the Indonesians did exactly that so this is not something that's being thought about for the first time.

      One suspects that you did not read the article... which is normal for slashdot, but given your username I would have expected different ;)

      I took my username specifically to remind me to read the article. In this case, the trollish bit is that I read not just the original article but a few more. The accusation is good though; keep it up and keep trolling all of us with it whenver you can.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    22. Re:It's not a patent by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      You are correct that it isn't a patent. It seems be more like a contractually based trade secret. It is unethical to allow such agreements to be enforced, especially for what basic research seems to suggest is a public university. At most, we should allow them to choose who to sell the information to, but not otherwise bind them downstream. However, if they need payment to do this research, the necessary payments should have been contracted first.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    23. Re:It's not a patent by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Ron Fouchier is the same guy that was burnt to the ground by the US government when he and his lab wanted to publish that dangerous virus recipe in Nature ... It's either "let him share information" and publish in Nature and Science without having senators screaming he's a terrorist and they should nuke the Netherlands

      Apparently your definition of "burnt to the ground" includes "publication was delayed". You make it sound like he was tortured by the Inquisition. Also that paper was not about a virus that exists in the wild (like this one), but about how to modify a dangerous virus so that it was more communicable to people. While his intent was scientific, it does sound a lot like how to build a better biological weapon. Publishing about a virus that already exists does not.

      t's either "let him share information" and publish in Nature and Science without having senators screaming he's a terrorist and they should nuke the Netherlands

      Bombast from congress? Who would've imagined. Being Dutch rather than American, the hot air probably dissipated before it could hit Fouchier on the other side of the Atlantic.

    24. Re:It's not a patent by chihowa · · Score: 1

      What's next for "property rights" for scientific discoveries, the developer of a new theory of gravity insisting on everyone signing an agreement before they can use it? Newton and Einstein didn't realize the money they lost by just publishing.

      You know, if science isn't going to be funded collectively by society anymore, maybe that's the correct way forward. It is any wonder that smart people go to Wall Street and into advertising instead when they're expected to devote their lives to the betterment of all mankind and do it all out of the kindness of their hearts, too?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    25. Re:It's not a patent by jythie · · Score: 1

      There are a number of court cases working their way through the system of the US government doing such things. There is this strange little clause that allows the DoD to take patented material and hand it to other companies to develop for them, so there have been problems with small companies patenting something, a contractor not liking the terms (or simply not wanting to ask) and the DoD simply removing their liability.

    26. Re:It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      add 10% for a reasonable profit

      I bet you under-tip wait staff too.

      so maybe kick in another 1 percent for the cost of electricity and space for the lab

      Gosh, ain't you a prince?

      Quick! Someone track PopeRatzo down and shove pieces of coal up his ass: He'll shit out diamonds in a few days! Profit!

    27. Re:It's not a patent by pakar · · Score: 1

      But even if you don't have genetic patents they still have an incentive... Patent for drug X that affect gene Y in this manner.. Or Patent for cheaply and accurately detecting gene Z.

      Genetic patents are not really good because they patent the actual gene so nobody else can make similar and better drugs or tests for that specific thing... There in lies the evil...

      If we take genetically modified crops... They are patented and they are suing people that reuse seeds from their last harvest...... Now lets say Company A gets a patent where they insert some new genetic sequence into a person... If that person then gets a kid then he will be infringing too?? Or how about if a virus would absorb a genetic-sequence and then spread over a population... Will the infected be patent-infringers too??

      Patents on genes should not exist. It's a really dangerous thing that actually hinders development of new treatments and blocks actual research.

      Do a google and read up a bit on the issues with genetic-patents... To get you started...
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/24/gene-patents-scientific-research-innovation

    28. Re:It's not a patent by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      But even if you don't have genetic patents they still have an incentive... Patent for drug X that affect gene Y in this manner.. Or Patent for cheaply and accurately detecting gene Z.

      You must be new here. Well, on slashdot, having drug patents is bad too. Usually the reasons range from something to the case the summary makes (patents holding back the cure) to drug patents are made so that the drug is only just effective enough to make people better but not cure the sickness so that they can sell more drugs, to the drug company benefited from research not done by them so they don't deserve the profits, even though they spent billions on encapsulating the drug into a safe form, then making sure it is safe, doing clinical trials to map out all possible side effects, and then bribing the FDA to allow it to actually be sold on the market.

      And yes the FDA needs to be bribed, in a manner of speaking. There's a surgery I'm trying to get right now that has been done in Europe safely since 1998 in order to prevent my Keratoconus from getting worse than it already is, in fact complete reversal of corneal degradation happens in upwards of 90% of cases where the surgery is performed, but the FDA still won't approve of it being performed in the US. It needs more "convincing", even after 15 years of very good results.

      GMO patents are done on genes that are created from scratch. The anti-GMO movement likes to point out research where some scientists took genes from a fish and put them into a tomato, and cite that as their reason for banning it. The actual changes made however are relatively small, and they aren't copied from an existing sequence existing naturally somewhere else. They form protein structures that are literally invented rather than discovered. Last I checked, patents are for inventions. It's very hard to argue that creating new protein structures isn't inventing - the thing you're taking issue with is the means with which those proteins are created, which is completely irrational.

      Most of the anti-GMO movement claims are based on what they see out of Hollywood. In fact every claim you just made has been vetted by a former anti-GMO activist (who was one of the founders of the movement) who found them to be untrue, and for the most part just outright made up due to a popular but irrational fear of any genetic modifications.

      I highly recommend watching the video here. It's long, but it actually gives insight into genetic research that I never even heard of until seeing it.

      http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/

      Of course, the popular theory now is that this guy has been paid off by Monsanto and is now a paid shill and mouthpiece for them, because clearly people only make a huge change in opinion when they've been paid to do so. And I hope you know better than to trust Hollywood, Greenpeace, the vegan movement, and PETA, all of which are well known to deliberately lie and spread false propaganda.

      There is one good thing that will come of this though. While "the rest of the world" sticks to conventional farming due to irrational fears, the US will be leading the way in terms of future agricultural sciences, which means future economic strength. Think about what Dr. Lynas said: Farming output has increased by 300% while landmass used for farms has only increased by 12% since the 50's. Organic farming would do nothing except reverse that trend. GMO farming will make things even better however. I really do hope that we never forcibly stick "GMO food" labels on anything, because it will have the same effect on agriculture that sticking radiation output labels on on cell phones would do. This effect has created health problems as is - namely the anti-preservative scare. Now instead of artificial preservatives, food contains celery juice as a natural preservative, which has far more of those scary nitrates th

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    29. Re:It's not a patent by fostware · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful

      You can't cut funding to science programmes and not expect it to bite you in the arse

      --
      "We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
    30. Re:It's not a patent by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      It's not just that. There are allowed exceptions for healthcare in copyright and patent treaties. That is why India can legally produce copy medicines ignoring patents - it invokes these clauses and applies them widely. And even big pharma is helpless before that. They spent a lot fighting it - and lost.

      I'd be really surprised if Saudis let this get in the way.

    31. Re:It's not a patent by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      It's not patented... *sigh*

      What the lab did was to sequence the genome and then (oooh evil) expect to get paid for that work if someone else wanted to use THEIR work to build something with that. That's the modus operandi of every other genetics lab in the world - they all analyze stuff and then provide results to paying customers.

      The Dutch lab is not blocking anyone from sequencing the genome themselves - that's a problem with *Saudi-Arabia*, they didn't even want to send the virus out to anyone in the first place for fear it would reflect badly upon their country. If the Saudi's sent out the virus to the CDC and other labs, for instance, this issue wouldn't be an issue, now would it?

      The article is completely and wildly off the mark, and the summary is confusing the issue even more, if that's even possible.

      Why can't they charge up front for their work, or on delivery of the promised work and be done with it?

    32. Re: It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from your idea being moronic, you clearly don't have a clue what amortising means.

      You do you expect to amortise the cost of equipment when nobody will pay you more than costs plus a pittance?

    33. Re:It's not a patent by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      What the lab did was to sequence the genome and then (oooh evil) expect to get paid for that work if someone else wanted to use THEIR work to build something with that.

      So they are fine with someone else performing the same gene sequencing (and likely getting the same dataset) and selling/distributing/doing business with that?

    34. Re:It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Saudis don't want the material transferred from their country except by a special mechanism which guarantees them the Patent rights. That is slowing down the rate at which the virus gets to people. The lab which has a sample doesn't want to distribute it without special agreements about patents. Again, this slows down the transfer. If the lab was not motivated by patents then it could simply say "all patents based on this material must be shared freely and without patents", however they don't do that.

      So fuck them.

      1. Quarantine the country, let the Saudis die in their own IP juices, and we'll take our samples from any folks in the west to whom the virus has spread.
      2. recolonize the empty Saudi wasteland
      3. profit

    35. Re:It's not a patent by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      You don't think that's enough money? Why is it that Work For Hire is okay for software developers, but is totally unfair for scientists and authors, and employers of software developers? What would you suggest for a fair method of calculating compensation? That is, other than the current method of "I dunno, let's hand them a monopoly and even spend public money on enforcement, so they can be as generous or as stingy and demanding as they want to be."

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    36. Re:It's not a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. 'Release' a modified deadly virus.
      2. Sue anyone that gets ill for 'copying'.
      3. Profit!

      Similiar to Monsanto suing when their special crops spread naturally. . .

    37. Re:It's not a patent by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Exactly, we need to remove all financial incentive for genetic research.

      Right. That's what we need to do.

      The financial incentive should come from manufacturing the cure, not from limiting access to it.

      If there were more reasonable limitations on intellectual property, we might have something to talk about. As it stands today, it's nothing but an impediment. It doesn't help, it only hurts.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    38. Re:It's not a patent by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I bet you under-tip wait staff too.

      No, the wait staff works for a living.

      People who work for a living are deserving. People who own for a living are not.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    39. Re:It's not a patent by whitroth · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: never gotten laid, and have no expectation of ever doing so? Even for-pay won't touch you?

  2. Cuts both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they're claiming the rights to the virus, they have to take the wrongs along with it. Hold them accountable for the damage the virus does, up to and including loss of human life.

    1. Re:Cuts both ways by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I like it. It's your virus? Pay up bitch!

    2. Re:Cuts both ways by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Yep, patents are for inventions. If they invented the virus, they also must have let it loose on the world at large. Perhaps some Saudi style justice should be applied to those involved.

    3. Re:Cuts both ways by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hold them accountable for the damage the virus does, up to and including loss of human life.

      Yes, the board, the shareholders and all C-level management should be held liable, personally.

      When you weigh the number of problems that would be solved immediately if the principals in a corporation were held personally liable against the benefits to society to having principals be protected from liability behind a corporate shield, I think it would be pretty clear the personal liability should exist.

      There would still be people willing to take the risk, since the rewards are great, but at least they'd have to give half a second to the consequences of their actions.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Cuts both ways by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      If they're claiming the rights to the virus

      They (Erasmus University) aren't - read the article. All they're saying is, "if you want us to send you our data, you need to agree not to commercialize it without us, and you need to release us from legal liability." They're not claiming rights to the virus at all, only their own analysis. There is nothing preventing Saudi Arabia from performing their own analysis independently and completely ignoring the Dutch. In fact, what's really going on here is that Saudi Arabia wants to hold on to any intellectual property rights deriving from the virus, and they're concerned that the Dutch may fuck that up. If people die as a result, the fault lies entirely with the Saudi government for dropping the ball.

    5. Re:Cuts both ways by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      On further reading, I retract this statement:

      They're not claiming rights to the virus at all, only their own analysis.

      However, this stands:

      There is nothing preventing Saudi Arabia from performing their own analysis independently and completely ignoring the Dutch.

    6. Re:Cuts both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold them accountable for the damage the virus does, up to and including loss of human life.

      Yes, the board, the shareholders and all C-level management should be held liable, personally...

      We just got done reading a summary that suggests pure greed is at the very heart of human loss in this case, and you expect those greedy cocksuckers to ever be held accountable?

      That'll happen when they order the third round of snowblowers in Hell.

    7. Re:Cuts both ways by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      There is nothing preventing Saudi Arabia from performing their own analysis independently and completely ignoring the Dutch.

      How about total lack of competence combined with arrogance backing up the lack of information transfer from the Dutch? The original doctor mentioned that the Saudi labs checked for swine flu and then stopped working, which was the point at which he sent the sample abroad. The Saudis mention that there was then a multi-month delay before they were informed of the result from the Dutch lab. Whilst they shouldn't have been waiting, incompetence is impossible to avoid and so the Dutch get the blame for that part of the delay.

      By the time the Saudis have had the delay and start looking for the virus, it seems the patients were dead or cured, so it's more difficult to find. When they finally do that, they find that most of the main international labs already have MTA agreements with the Dutch lab. Whilst I don't know if they make any legal difference in theory, I'm sure that any lab has to think carefully before accepting a separate sample and having MTA like obligations in two directions. The risk of a lawsuit is clearly there.

      Overall neither side looks good, however it's very clear that patents and IP rights generally are behind the whole problem. If they aren't eliminated from the equation somehow there's a real risk that a future epidemic will take hold where it could have been easily stopped if there were less of a delay.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    8. Re:Cuts both ways by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      it's very clear that patents and IP rights generally are behind the whole problem

      I wouldn't be so sure in this case. The Saudi official who has been complaining the loudest admitted (to a journalist who actually bothered to ask pointed questions) that the Dutch claim hasn't actually held up research in Saudi Arabia. He also admitted that the most bothersome aspect of this mess wasn't the lack of access, it was the fact that the Dutch were even claiming commercial rights that should have belonged exclusively to Saudi Arabia. (And I agree to the extent that the Dutch are behaving somewhat unethically here.)

      As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, an MTA of some sort is standard practice, and in this case, where the material is a known human pathogen, some legal documentation and waiver of liability is absolutely essential. Even more so when the sample is being distributed internationally. Any researcher who would send a virus like this to a lab in another country without some kind of legally binding agreement should be fired for incompetence. Whether IP rights are involved or not does not affect this.

      I think it's only a matter of time before biotech patents really do start to inhibit potentially life-saving research; I've seen it argued that personal genomics research is essentially violating gene patents in bulk, because that's the only way they can do any research at all! If our ability to get diagnostics from genome sequencing were held up by patents, or (more likely) if the $1000 genome became a $10,000 genome again because of all of the licensing fees, that would be genuinely tragic. But I think this case is simply a multi-national spat over IP rights; it has nothing to do with actually curing the disease.

    9. Re:Cuts both ways by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Today, patents are merely about who owns the profits. No invention necessary.

  3. Just make patents full ownership by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

    You reap all the rewards, but you're also responsible for all the harm. So if you want to claim you own a virus, then you're also fiscally and criminally liable for any harm that virus does. It also takes care of the Monsanto case where farmers who unknowingly have GMO crop blown onto their fields are successfully sued for patent infringement, but when organic farms who don't want the GMO stuff try to sue Monsanto for the same thing, Monsanto claim they have no responsibility for Nature spreading their seed around.

    1. Re:Just make patents full ownership by DMoylan · · Score: 2

      they'll just blame people making illegal copies and sue their next of kin :-)

    2. Re:Just make patents full ownership by linear+a · · Score: 2

      I feel that one euro per unlicensed copy created by the defendant is fair compensation your honor.

    3. Re:Just make patents full ownership by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I hate to defend Monsanto but enough is enough. By now you've had time to read, you've seen the many posts, you've had the chance to learn. Monsanto has done none of those things you just accused Monsanto of actually happened (except maybe claiming they don't control nature, they don't). Here's a link:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_controversies

      No, that doesn't list all of them but don't you think that they'd include cases such as the types you're claiming they have had? There's no vast conspiracy involving Wikipedia either. If they had cases like the ones you mentioned they'd be listed on that site. They haven't sued folks for having some seeds blow into their field. They've sued people who have intentionally, knowingly, violated either their agreements or their patents.

      Wow... I can't believe I'm defending Monsanto. I need to go shower. I don't know where this rumor started but I recall watching some movie that made these claims. I then meandered over to that mystical fact checking box in the corner of my living room and had myself a peek. I typed in various mystical arcana and determined that, frankly, Monsanto is still an asshole but, frankly, didn't do half the stuff people accuse them of doing. It is like a repeat of the McDonald's Hot Coffee Suit.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  4. Genes must be free from patents and other BS by gweihir · · Score: 1

    After all, these people did not invent them and even if they did, that would basically be software, again free from patentibility in any sane legal systems.

    Do it any other way and the immoral vultures come in, people that not only do not care about others at all, but want to prevent anybody else from doing any work in areas the perceive as "theirs". That is a sure recipe for disaster.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. Bill them then... by Roogna · · Score: 2

    If they "own" the virus, then send them the bill for ALL expenses related to the disease and it's effects. Put a lien on all their patents until they pay up.

    1. Re:Bill them then... by St.Creed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RTFA. They didn't patent it, they're not blocking anyone. The problem is with Saudi-Arabia, not with the Dutch lab. The article is borderline slander, but the summary is outright misleading.

      From the article:
      "Eleven months ago, Zaki told the Guardian, he was called in as a consultant on a mysterious case in his Jeddah hospital. Zaki tried to identify the virus, but the patient died less than twenty-four hours after he received the sample. Soon, a second case came his way, and Zaki mailed a sample to his friend, Fouchier. Zaki sent a notice in September 2012 to ProMED, a disease alert system run by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Under pressure from the Saudi government, Zaki's hospital in Jeddah fired him when the ProMED notice was posted, and he moved to Cairo."

      Note the timing: he was fired after the alert got out that there was a problem.

      Without the Dutch lab, there would have been no sequence and NO ALERT because the Saudi govt. was trying to keep it quiet. That was at a time that patients were already dying outside Saudi Arabia too. The whistleblower who saw two dead patients and a potential disaster and took action, is fired. Note that if they sent the virus to *ANYONE ELSE* the virus could have been sequenced a dozen times over, easily - it's not that hard. The problem isn't with a Dutch lab that asks for payment in return for results and a cut of the potential profit. The problem is with the Saudi government that fires people who actually try to alert the world.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    2. Re:Bill them then... by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yes, Saudi Arabia screwed up (what a surprise) by trying to keep the problem under wraps. However, it's disingenuous to say there is no problem with the "Dutch lab that asks for payment in return for results and a cut of the potential profit". FTA:

      the Dutch team has not patented the viral genetic sequence but has placed it under an MTA, which requires sample recipients to contractually agree not to develop products or share the sample without the permission of Erasmus and the Fouchier laboratory

      They are not looking to be paid for their work in sequencing the virus, but to get a cut of any treatment that may be developed by controlling who is allowed to develop a treatment. Why, because they received a sample first? Forget debating the so-called intellectual property rights aspect of this. Regardless of how Saudi Arabia screwed up, this is a serious threat to public health. Currently in Saudi Arabia, and potentially the rest of the planet. I don't know what you'd have to do under Dutch law, but if it were in the US it should be seized under eminent domain. Before some "property rights" fanatic gets their panties in a twist, I'll say the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London was absurd. Transferring private property from one private owner to another isn't a public purpose. However dealing with anything that's a threat to the public health is very much a public purpose.

    3. Re:Bill them then... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't with a Dutch lab that asks for payment in return for results and a cut of the potential profit. The problem is with the Saudi government that fires people who actually try to alert the world.

      I'd say the problem is with both. The financial rewards should go to whoever develops treatments and cures, not to a publicly funded research lab that happens to have received disease samples for free and is now trying to profit from them.

    4. Re:Bill them then... by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      RTFA. They didn't patent it, they're not blocking anyone.

      These suspicions were confirmed on 28 May by Science magazine, to which Erasmus admitted an as yet unpublished claim over use of the virus.

      (from this article)

      The problem is with Saudi-Arabia, not with the Dutch lab.

      Erasmus determined that it was a new coronavirus (SARS is another coronavirus), but delayed several months before making it available to others.

      (same source)

      Saudi Arabia's Memish complained at the WHO meeting that there was a lag of three months, between June and September 2012,

      (article linked from summary above)

      The article is borderline slander, but the summary is outright misleading.

      That's a strong statement you are making there.

      The problem isn't with a Dutch lab that asks for payment in return for results and a cut of the potential profit. The problem is with the Saudi government that fires people who actually try to alert the world.

      Why does the problem have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both, but especially the involvement of patents in medicine and especially in patenting pre-existing natural gene sequences and their derived products? For clarity I deleted a section of your post where I have no comment

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    5. Re:Bill them then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, because they put in the effort to sequence the virus - an investment of labor that does entitle them to some of the proceeds that derive from that work. From my reading of the article, there is nothing that would prevent another lab from sequencing it and/or making samples freely available - the Saudis have unencumbered samples, so why couldn't other organizations get samples directly from the source? If you want me to provide something readily repreoduced to you, it seems fairly reasonable for me to restrict who else you can pass it on to.

    6. Re:Bill them then... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      They are not looking to be paid for their work in sequencing the virus, but to get a cut of any treatment that may be developed by controlling who is allowed to develop a treatment.

      But because there isn't actually a patent on any of this, there is nothing that prevents anyone else from doing the sequencing themselves. This isn't rocket science - in fact it is trivial for any reasonably well-equipped biomedical research institution. Saudi Arabia is only unhappy because they want to retain exclusive rights, which of course is quite legal under international law, but if they actually cared about developing a cure, they'd already have their own sequence.

    7. Re:Bill them then... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Well, the MTA is also about agreeing on limiting the distribution of a potential new plague. It would be pretty embarassing to have it end up in N. Korea through a chain of companies. This way, the signing party will be liable and Ron Fouchier won't get "renditioned" to Guantanamo for being a bio-terrorist if something goes wrong.

      As for the seizing of property: if there was a clear need for the data and this lab was sitting on it, the Dutch government could have a chat with their own university council to get it released.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    8. Re:Bill them then... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Here is a better source. Selected quotes:

      Drosten, who has developed a diagnostic test using the virus from Erasmus MC, says that "anyone can use [the virus] for free." "What really shocks me is that the WHO seems to be buying into" the complaints, he says.

      Memish says that the issue has not impeded research in Saudi Arabia itself, where most cases of the virus have been found.

      Memish says that his main gripe is with the fact that Zaki sent a virus sample taken from a patient in Saudi Arabia to Rotterdam in the first place and that Erasmus MC has been able to file for patents as a result. "Samples were shipped outside of the country without the knowledge or permission of the Ministry of Health and I cannot believe that any country on this planet would allow this to happen," Memish says. Zaki says that he gave a sample from the same patient to the Saudi Ministry of Health first. "They tested for swine flu and did not continue," he told ScienceInsider yesterday. Only then did he reach out to Fouchier.

    9. Re:Bill them then... by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1
      Nice; Thanks. My chosen quote would be:

      the virus material still belongs to the original provider (in this case Erasmus MC) and that the recipient cannot give it to other labs. It also asks for written consent from Erasmus for using the virus for commercial purposes.

      After which I can't see how anyone can claim that this MTA doesn't slow down research. Think about the fact that producing and selling a vaccine is a "commercial purpose". Pharmaceutical companies do not operate as charities.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    10. Re:Bill them then... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Saudi Arabia is only unhappy because they want to retain exclusive rights, which of course is quite legal under international law, but if they actually cared about developing a cure, they'd already have their own sequence.

      You keep claiming this. Please provide a cite.

    11. Re:Bill them then... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      That's a crock of shit. If I pay you for a good or service, I am usually not bound by further conditions. They can sell the info at any price they want, but it's unreasonable for them to limit what their customer does with that info after the transaction is completed.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:Bill them then... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Well, the MTA is also about agreeing on limiting the distribution of a potential new plague. It would be pretty embarassing to have it end up in N. Korea through a chain of companies. This way, the signing party will be liable and Ron Fouchier won't get "renditioned" to Guantanamo for being a bio-terrorist if something goes wrong.

      You keep talking about the CYA aspect of it, which is straw man of your making since no one objects to that aspect. What you don't address is the "MTA, which requires sample recipients to contractually agree not to develop products ... without the permission of Erasmus and the Fouchier laboratory".

      As for the seizing of property: if there was a clear need for the data and this lab was sitting on it, the Dutch government could have a chat with their own university council to get it released. [emphasis added]

      Could doesn't mean they will, nevertheless you make a good point. Always twist somebody's arm first. If that doesn't work you can always break it.

    13. Re:Bill them then... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Why, because they put in the effort to sequence the virus - an investment of labor that does entitle them to some of the proceeds that derive from that work.

      Erasmus is a public university, not a for-profit corporation. Fouchier, et al, get salaries. Universities regularly publish information from research that cost millions of euros, because that's what universities exist for.

    14. Re:Bill them then... by Zouden · · Score: 1

      They are not looking to be paid for their work in sequencing the virus, but to get a cut of any treatment that may be developed by controlling who is allowed to develop a treatment. Why, because they received a sample first?

      No, because they put the resources into sequencing it. If you want to use their sequence data, you have to sign their MTA. Otherwise you're free to sequence it yourself and use your own data. The Dutch lab isn't preventing you from doing that.

      --
      "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    15. Re:Bill them then... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I don't know, either way... However, given the slant and inaccuracies or omissions in the article I'd attempt to verify any claims made by the article before coming to conclusions. I really don't know - but, in this case, I highly recommend finding alternative sources (preferably unbiased) and then use that information to reach any conclusions you wish to come to.

      Then again, I often opine that we should seek multiple sources of verification and engage in reasoning before reaching our conclusions. It hasn't helped, my opining that is, but I hope that it does someday. Perhaps my sanity needs to be checked.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    16. Re:Bill them then... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      You keep claiming this. Please provide a cite.

      It's an assumption, but an entirely reasonable assumption under the circumstances. Conversely, the people complaining about this haven't pointed to a single instance where the Dutch university has actually held up research for a cure, which is what this article is claiming. MTAs are completely standard and it would be absolutely insane to instantly mail out samples of a lethal virus without some sort of legal agreement.

    17. Re:Bill them then... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      After which I can't see how anyone can claim that this MTA doesn't slow down research.

      But an MTA of some sort is totally standard practice - I know because I've worked in biomedical research labs - and absolutely essential when dealing with samples of a lethal virus. Even if the MTA did not specify any limitations on commercial use, it would still slow down the transfer of viral material. Any time there's an issue of legal liability the lawyers will get involved. It's not as simple as throwing a sample into a FedEx pouch and sending it off.

      Think about the fact that producing and selling a vaccine is a "commercial purpose". Pharmaceutical companies do not operate as charities.

      Okay, so hypothetically, if a pharma company wants to obtain the samples and intends to profit from them, why shouldn't they have to sign an agreement like this? If they're unhappy, they can always ask the Saudi government instead. No one is forcing them to go to Erasmus, except that the Saudis seem remarkably reluctant to cede any control.

    18. Re:Bill them then... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      You keep claiming this. Please provide a cite.

      Actually, sorry, previous reply was incorrect - I did in fact have a citation:

      Memish, in an interview with ScienceInsider yesterday, says that he had not seen the MTA himself. "I spoke to many scientists that said they were not willing to take the virus because the MTA was too restrictive," Memish says, but he did not give specific examples. "I made my comments on this assumption," he says. But Memish says that the issue has not impeded research in Saudi Arabia itself, where most cases of the virus have been found.

      Memish says that his main gripe is with the fact that Zaki sent a virus sample taken from a patient in Saudi Arabia to Rotterdam in the first place and that Erasmus MC has been able to file for patents as a result. "Samples were shipped outside of the country without the knowledge or permission of the Ministry of Health and I cannot believe that any country on this planet would allow this to happen," Memish says. Zaki says that he gave a sample from the same patient to the Saudi Ministry of Health first. "They tested for swine flu and did not continue," he told ScienceInsider yesterday. Only then did he reach out to Fouchier.

      all parties agree that the virus was originally isolated in Saudi Arabia. Thus, the real question behind the discussions is whether Saudi Arabia should benefit in some way from whatever comes out of research on the virus

      It's refreshing to see that Science magazine actually did some genuine reporting.

    19. Re:Bill them then... by jythie · · Score: 1

      True, but keep in mind one of the ways universities keep research going are the fees they make from patents, MTAs, etc. Unless the public is willing to invest a LOT more in public funding, Universities are going to need that revenue stream.

      Since their agreement was written around the idea that only commercial applications required a fee (so other researchers and non-profits are allowed to use the data for free), they are already keeping to the spirit of public research pretty well.

    20. Re:Bill them then... by gronofer · · Score: 1

      Sadly, patent law would work the other way around. They would be able to send you a bill for all the trillions of unathorised copies of "their" virus that your body is producing.

    21. Re:Bill them then... by gronofer · · Score: 1

      Which presents an obvious business model: * Genetically engineer a novel infectable virus * Patent it * Somehow it may escape into the wild, purely by accident of course. * Sue anybody who is infected for the trillions of unathorised copies. Years ago this would have been unethical, but by modern standards, I'm sure you'd be fine.

  6. I expect you socialists want the cure for free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you can't pay for it the free market has decided you shouldn't survive.

  7. so send all the patients and virus there by swschrad · · Score: 1

    all problems solved ;)

    seriously... maybe... perhaps all these medical/life sciences patents and issues should be placed in public domain? like you boot up Unix and get (c) by 20 different companies? Universal MegaMedCorp LLC PTY M-O-U-S-E gets its name on every vial regardless who made it. good for mankind, good for morale.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:so send all the patients and virus there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps all these medical/life sciences patents and issues should be placed in public domain?

      Better idea. If there's a defect in a Ford car that causes me to crash, Ford owes me big time because they built the car. Now granted, the patent holder of these genes did not create the genes, but I think the same kind of logic should apply.

  8. This is stupid by msobkow · · Score: 1

    You are not supposed to be able to patent discoveries. Genetic sequences already exist unless you're doing genetic engineering. Therefore you should not be able to patent any genetics found in nature, because you haven't created a God-damned thing.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  9. Derivative works? by tlambert · · Score: 1

    "Never Mind the Epidemic, Who Gets Patent Rights For the Cure?"

    I imagine that since the cure is, by definition, a derivative work of the disease, that some of the royalties will have to go to the labs that created the original disease.

    Obviously, if it's an "Act of God" rather than a lab that created the disease, the money should go in tithing to your local church.

    Correspondingly, you should be able to sue your local church, as God's representative on Earth, for compensation for any loss of life, pain and suffering, property damage, and so on, where Acts of God are involved unless, you know, they were to disclaim any association.

    1. Re:Derivative works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you would have to identify which God was responsible. And they are notorious for being difficult to serve with papers, and then they don't show up anyway.

    2. Re:Derivative works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So serve the pope, he actually claims to be God's representative here on earth.

  10. Cheeseheads by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    They're well known for being tight bastards. The reason their flag has horizontal stripes is so it can fray halfway to the staff before they need to buy a new one.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  11. About the patent right by jonfr · · Score: 1

    I would not worry to much about the patent rights, when holder is dead from this disease (natural spread due to the pandemic taking place) the patent is going to be confiscated by the government (of the U.S and rest of the world).

    You can't make money out this patent if 80% of the world population is dead due to this pandemic.

  12. liability by neghvar1 · · Score: 1

    I say that if they claim the patent/all rights/ownership of this virus, then should they be held liable for the deaths caused by " their" virus?

  13. Magic Bullet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our Dutch friends don't understand the non-medical meaning of a magic bullet. Yet.

  14. Do you *really* want to own this? by pla · · Score: 1

    At the center of the dispute is a Dutch laboratory that claims all rights to the genetic sequence of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus

    You fuckers want the rights to it? Granted!

    ...With one catch - You bear criminal responsibility for every single person who dies from it once you stake your claim to it. I would add "moral" responsibility as well, but hell, a retarded 2YO could have explained that one to you.

    If I own an aggressive dog, I have liability for its actions. Why should we treat the absolute lowest of the low, who let people die to make a buck, any better?

  15. If lives are at stake perhaps the law must break by elucido · · Score: 1

    It might be worth whatever consequence from breaking this law if it saves lives.

  16. Nevermind the epidemic by Kohath · · Score: 1

    whine about patents. Because whining about patents cures ... ?

    People with drug patents might actually help you when you're sick. What will the anti-patent crowd do for you when you're sick? Besides trying to take away the financial incentive to cure you?

    1. Re:Nevermind the epidemic by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Follow you own logic. This lab is deciding who can develop a treatment, and what cut of it the Dutch lab will get. Is that your idea of a free market? They're controlling access to a virus, which will reduce the financial incentive for creating a treatment.

    2. Re:Nevermind the epidemic by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      This lab is deciding who can develop a treatment, and what cut of it the Dutch lab will get. Is that your idea of a free market? They're controlling access to a virus

      No, they're not. For fuck's sake, can't any of you read the goddamn article? (Slashdot editors included.)

    3. Re:Nevermind the epidemic by ebno-10db · · Score: 1
      FTA:

      impeding an effective response is a dispute over rights to develop a treatment for the virus

      the Dutch team has not patented the viral genetic sequence but has placed it under an MTA, which requires sample recipients to contractually agree not to develop products or share the sample without the permission of Erasmus and the Fouchier laboratory

    4. Re:Nevermind the epidemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually according to Bloomberg they have patented the virus.
      "Dutch scientists who took out a patent on the novel coronavirus that’s killed 22 people since emerging in Saudi Arabia last year defended the move after the Saudi Health Ministry said the patent was hindering the fight against the outbreak."

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/coronavirus-found-in-saudi-patented-by-dutch-scientists.html

      as does the New Scientist

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23593-saudis-say-dutch-patent-on-mers-virus-hampers-research.html

      and while this has nothing to do with the Saudi virus, it seems like the CDC is claiming ownership of the SARS virus.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3076748/ns/health-infectious_diseases/t/scientists-race-patent-sars-virus/#.UaprRWTf_bo

      So my question stands, What right do these organizations have to apply for a patent or claim ownership. They neither invented nor discovered the virus. So how can they claim ownership?

      I guess if I ever contract SARS I will sue the CDC as according to them they are responsible.

    5. Re:Nevermind the epidemic by ebno-10db · · Score: 1
      Quoting in full because I don't have mod points today and the PP shouldn't languish at score 0.

      Actually according to Bloomberg they have patented the virus. "Dutch scientists who took out a patent on the novel coronavirus that’s killed 22 people since emerging in Saudi Arabia last year defended the move after the Saudi Health Ministry said the patent was hindering the fight against the outbreak."

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/coronavirus-found-in-saudi-patented-by-dutch-scientists.html

      as does the New Scientist

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23593-saudis-say-dutch-patent-on-mers-virus-hampers-research.html

      and while this has nothing to do with the Saudi virus, it seems like the CDC is claiming ownership of the SARS virus.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3076748/ns/health-infectious_diseases/t/scientists-race-patent-sars-virus/#.UaprRWTf_bo

      So my question stands, What right do these organizations have to apply for a patent or claim ownership. They neither invented nor discovered the virus. So how can they claim ownership?

      I guess if I ever contract SARS I will sue the CDC as according to them they are responsible.

    6. Re:Nevermind the epidemic by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      the Saudi Health Ministry said the patent was hindering the fight against the outbreak.

      I repeat: they have not provided a shred of proof for this allegation. Based on everything else I've read, the Saudis probably have grounds to have the patent overturned on the basis that Erasmus obtained the material illegally, and as a national government, they can do pretty much anything they want if there is a genuine public health emergency. Everything points to the Saudis being unhappy that a) the research is now out of their control (and remember, this is a government that really, really likes to control everything that happens inside its borders, unusually so by modern standards), and b) someone else might make money off it. But complaining about this to the WHO probably wouldn't get as much sympathy as if they claim that the Dutch IP claim is preventing a cure.

    7. Re:Nevermind the epidemic by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Considering a lot more research is based on discoveries made by schools. And that 14 year old high school students are making better tests than bulti-billion dollar pharmaceutical corps.

      Um, probably quite a lot. Maybe if American's weren't expending nearly 5%-15% of their earned income on health care and insurance. We could crowd source most diseases away.

  17. Re:I expect you socialists want the cure for free. by Kohath · · Score: 1

    The disease decided you shouldn't survive. Free people making free choices decided to help you live instead. They're just asking for something in return for their time and effort.

  18. A thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saudi Arabia better hope they NEVER run out of oil..

    I really doubt the world would put up with their insane head up their own stupid ass antics otherwise..

  19. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the hell can you patent a virus? You did not create it, and the dutch certainly did not discover it so on what grounds do they have to apply for a patent?

  20. Read the Cited Article to the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Before critiquing the /. article or subject, read the citation through to the end. Read the information about the Indonesian case, and the reason Indonesia refused to share, and the legal solution, which are among the reasons Saudi Arabia is objecting.

    Western investors in pharmaceuticals want money. They want patents and agreements that will guarantee them profits from cures for epidemics. They don't give a damn about the people who die of the diseases, particularly if those people could not have afforded to be customers contributing to making their investments profitable. The Indonesians, and the Saudis, want to put the lives of their "throw-away" citizens (third-worlders, Muslims, riff-raff, you know) ahead of the profits curing only those who can afford the cure and sucking off funds of charities to pay the margins their patents etc. add on, may provide them.

    Who are the villains, the legal manipulators for profit western pharmaceuticals and their investors, who want to force themselves in as middle-men, or the local health professionals who refuse to release samples, while infected people die, to assure that cures, when they become available, will be affordable (and more difficult for Machiavellians to manipulate for 'real-politic purposes?

    1. Re:Read the Cited Article to the End by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      The Indonesians, and the Saudis, want to put the lives of their "throw-away" citizens (third-worlders, Muslims, riff-raff, you know) ahead of the profits curing only those who can afford the cure and sucking off funds of charities to pay the margins their patents etc. add on, may provide them.

      I was going to respond to this, but another comment already made my point. The Indonesians and Saudis are grandstanding, because everyone hates Western pharmaceutical companies (I don't like them either) and they make easy targets. There is still nothing stopping them from making their own cures if they so desire. I think Erasmus University is being pretty stupid about this (and probably unethical as well), but most of the controversy is being manufactured by corrupt third-world governments. As usual.

    2. Re:Read the Cited Article to the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Indonesian this is my opinion on this matter.

      At that time our Ministry of Health raised the concern from her experience.

      While it is a fact that we don't have the ability to develop the cure for the virus (was it H1N1 a.k.a "swine flu"?), it is also a fact that we have many who fell ill and suffering from that disease. I recalled the Directorate General of Health Ministry laid out those two fact and *willing to cooperate* with foreigners if the foreigners willing to put aside their clout of "profit first" in turn. At that time, our greatest concern were the lives of the people contracting this virus, and we were working hard to contain this. We have many farmers with direct contact with their poultry, and in rural area we have little to not enough qualified health workers to monitor the situation. So when people getting sick left and right everyday on TV which mostly farmers and rural residents who are not financially well off, do you think they have the means to pay up for the cure?

      Our media at that time put way too much slant on the "evil greedy foreigner", I recalled they even ask the Front Pembela Islam (of all people that they can ask for opinion!!) about this matter, and THEN the science and history of the disease. In turn the foreign correspondents follow on this (ie. "sovereignty" point) which leads reports and writings that many of you read which form your opinion of *the Indonesians are grandstanding*, while to my own recollection the Directorate General of Ministry gave out the "we are willing to cooperate"-signal throughout the press conference.

      So, please tell me is it not reasonable for the Ministry of Health to cooperate while at the same time wanting the foreigners to cooperate back? What you are talking by "making their own cures" is is not a possibility regarding to the first fact, we wouldn't come up with any and even if we can it would take long at the cost of of too many human lives, given the projected infection rate at that time.

      What I'm trying to say? You sounds like as someone who look at this problem only from your own view conveniently dismissing ours (or the Saudis in this case): that we are corrupt moslem third world-ers, that might be better off to just die already or to pay you for everything for eternity forgetting we already past the colonialism and whatnot for decades already. While you seem to put little thought to our (Indonesians) concerns: we do not want to end up paying huge money to foreigners who wont even cooperate, at least to cut us a deal or to make the research accessible to us, if not the entire world.

      You are too focused that we are too corrupt, and neglecting to the other fact that we have people falling like flies. We DO care about our brothers and sisters, and the Health Ministry, I think, did the right thing to make sure we are not paying big money for the cure which developed from samples that we give away. If anything that is national interest.. NOT corruption.

    3. Re:Read the Cited Article to the End by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      we are corrupt moslem third world-ers, that might be better off to just die already or to pay you for everything for eternity forgetting we already past the colonialism and whatnot for decades already

      You are misrepresenting my opinion and putting words into my mouth. If you're going to attribute such views to me when I'm attempting to discuss the issue in good faith from a disinterested perspective, why should I believe anything you say about the motivations of the Indonesian (or Saudi) government?

  21. Re:I expect you socialists want the cure for free. by dcollins · · Score: 1

    I will use those words the next time I'm looking for a polite way to describe blackmail.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  22. just had this nice idea: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you or any company patent the virus and then sue it if it tries to go on replicating itself in any cell on earth without your permission. This would be the end to all illnesses caused by viruses, right? oh, I guess I have to hurry up to patent this idea! Do I get the Nobel prize for medicine for this breakthrough?? I'm a genius, right?

  23. Not very dangerous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    30 people wooooo.

  24. Copyright on a map? by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    Isn't this like how you can't copyright a map? You can protect your version of the map but if someone else makes a map of the same area they will end up with the same map. This is why map makers put little errors in their maps so as to prove that it is a copy of their effort and not just another map.

    I hope the Dutch lose because this would set a terrible precedent in that nothing should get in the way of curing epidemics. If it is a truly bad epidemic hours can be the difference in a an order or orders of magnitude of deaths.

  25. Re:I expect you socialists want the cure for free. by Kohath · · Score: 1

    The farmer who grows your food is also "blackmailing" you the same way.

  26. Nuke the saudis before they spread pandemic by MajVariola · · Score: 1

    If someone gets their panties in a bundle because a pandemic-capable bug was shipped from their neighborhood, perhaps we should just fumingate their population to prevent its spread. Or, you could join the international community of science. Your choice.

  27. OT: what's the term for introducing those errors? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    map makers put little errors in their maps so as to prove that it is a copy of their effort

    Does anyone know that that is called? I thought I knew a real word for it once... maybe industry jargon and not a "dictionary" word?

    Maybe someone in the map biz can educate us.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  28. let them own genes if they want. by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    . ..under the condition that they are responsible for any damages caused by 'their' gene.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  29. Patent are not holy cows by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    I do not get it. Patent are only national protection, and one would have to file in every juridiction to get a world wide protection. And a sovereign nation can decide to make some patent invalid, the only thing that could refrain it from doing so is WTO's TRIPS, but not everyone signed it, and even for the nations who did, it has provisions to trump patents because of the general interest. See TRIPS article 27.2:

    Members may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment

    So where is the problem?

    1. Re:Patent are not holy cows by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      So where is the problem?

      The only problem is that if someone makes money off this, the House of Saud might not get a cut. No one is preventing their government (or anyone else) from researching a cure; it's simply another excuse to bash Western pharmaceutical companies, as if any more excuses were needed.

  30. Sue them for criminal liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sue them for criminal liability for anyone who gets sick from the illness. If they want to own the disease, then make them criminally liable for it.

  31. Where are their principles? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    Patents are for technology and copyrights are for works created by people. Neither are for facts of nature. Genes should not be patented. Those who try to patent the genetic sequences of living things should have their own genes rendered into slag.

  32. Something wrong with this picture. by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    If a thing called a human being asserted ownership of a patent for a virus, and used that patent in any way to block research for a cure, then . . ..

  33. Don't get the vaccine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well whatever happens. Don't get the vaccine. Here are excellent examples.

    Historical trends show that deaths caused by childhood illnesses had already declined as much as 90% before vaccine programs were ever initiated. Evidence indicates that an improved standard of living, better nutrition, and increased sanitation, caused this drop in disease, not vaccines.
    “In 1954 the Americans pushed forward a polio campaign. What happened within the first year was that to their horror they found that particularily one type of the polio vaccine was causing polio. Because the vaccine is not a killed virus, your giving polio in a partly killed form. They got rid of that particular type of the vaccine. Then they realized that all the forms of the polio vaccine caused polio. So what they did is redefine it. They only called it polio if you still had paralysis after 60 days. Now in most cases polio paralysis resolves after a few days. So that's how the statistics of polio went down. By changing the definitions.” Dr. David Ritchie

    “Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic meningitis...According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis in the United States alone. That's where all those 30,000 - 50,000 cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination” Dr. Vera Schiebner

    Vaccines are a scam.

    1. Re:Don't get the vaccine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barking anti-vaccer believes polio is the same thing as meningitis. Do not listen to them; overall, vaccines are one of the proven triumphs of modern medicine. Going back to not vaccinating would be about on the level of going back to shitting in the corner of the room.

      "Dr. Vera Schiebner": Not a qualified medical doctor.
      "Dr. David Ritchie": A NZ GP apparently. We had a single GP like that in the UK. Now some people are dying as a result of not being vaccinated.

  34. It's an original new approach by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    It means they intend to battle the coronavirus by sueing it for patent infringement. Might work.

  35. Re:I expect you socialists want the cure for free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The farmer is protected from thieves by society in exchange for fait price. See the error in you raisoning? If not, go to Somalia.

  36. Fundamental question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one here who thinks that issues related to diseases with global pandemic potential should be dealt with as a global threat and thus not bogged down by business and monetary gains? I mean seriously? I can understand patent culture in terms of Apple and Samsung but no one dies in the process. it's almost like the fire-fighting companies of the past (we won't save your house if you don't have a contract with us logic). Guess we need an international Virus Prime Directive: "Eliminate virus threat first. if your actions hinder this in any form (even through profiteering) you also are the virus. "

  37. Maybe you should reconsider doing what you hate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you'd just bother to read the page you linked for reference, you'd see this:

    Since the mid1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed but has proceeded through trial against only eleven farmers, all of which it won.[131] The Center for Food Safety has listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations.[132] The usual claim involves violation of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season's crop to plant the next. One farmer received an eight-month prison sentence for conspiracy to commit fraud during litigation with Monsanto[133] in addition to having to pay damages.[134]

    Monsanto sued the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator in Pilot Grove, Missouri, on the grounds that by cleaning harvested seeds covered by Monsanto's patents so that farmers could replant them, the elevator was inducing them to infringe Monsanto's patents. The Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator had been cleaning conventional seeds for decades before the development of genetic engineering and developments in patent law led to the existence of issued patents that cover seeds.[135]

    In one case in 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer, but sharecropped land with his brother and nephew, who were violating the patent. Monsanto dropped the lawsuit against him when it discovered the mistake.[135]

    If you'd truly like to know more, you can start on these different themes about Monsanto and RoundUp:
    Killing 90% of amphibians
    Wiping out bee colonies
    Killing thousands of farmers
    Causing widespready obesity diseases

    I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. They will suck the planet and humanity dry, and vanish like a puff of smoke when everything collapses due to their greed and harmful actions. Make no mistake, Monsanto and the owners behind it will do everything in their effort to prevent being held accountable. Company accountability is almost non-existant by law anyway. So to expect anything better than amoral sociopathic behaviour from corporations is foolish, naive at best.

  38. Re:I expect you socialists want the cure for free. by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Society protects the farmer from thieves because if society didn't, no one would farm and you would starve. Or only highly armed groups of men would farm inside fortifications, and they would shoot guys like you from the walls.

  39. I'm afraid you're all in violation ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    ... of my recently granted patent on adenosine triphosphate. All your life are belong to me!

  40. Rights and responsibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can have all the rights to a virus' genetic sequence only if you accept responsibility for the destruction caused by that virus. Seems only fair.

    If I own a gun that is used in a murder, I will face consequences; if you own a virus that kills thirty people, you should face consequences.

  41. 30 people is NOT an 'epidemic' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What an absolute joke modern 'science' is. THIRTY people, out of a world population of what, eight BILLION? How many other people died from other diseases during the same time period? 10 million? 50 million?

  42. Re:OT: what's the term for introducing those error by mikechant · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know that that is called? I thought I knew a real word for it once... maybe industry jargon and not a "dictionary" word?

    "Trap Street" is one such feature:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street

    This is common, specific type of "Copyright Trap"; other bogus or distorted features may be used on maps other than street maps.

  43. If having a Patent implies "ownership"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aren't there consequences if the thing you "own" hurts people? Maybe there should be.

  44. Re:I expect you socialists want the cure for free. by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    My great-great-......grandfather discovered iron. Pay up bitch. We own that element. Quit using it.

    I mean seriously, patenting genes and such and charging exhorberant DNA tests for thousands of dollars, when other companies have come up with tests that cost a mere $100. Just because you get to claim ownership of the gene.

    This does not sound stupid to you?

    I think it's clearly stupid. It would be like letting someone patent an element on the periodic table.