Slashdot Mirror
Nearly Half the Patents on Marine Genes Belong To Just One Company (smithsonianmag.com)
A creature as majestic as a whale, you might think, should have no owner. Yet it turns out that certain snippets of the DNA that makes a sperm whale a sperm whale are actually the subjects of patents -- meaning that private entities have exclusive rights to their use for research and development. From a report: The same goes for countless other marine species. And new research shows that a single German chemical company owns 47 percent of patented marine gene sequences. A just-published paper in Science Advances finds that 862 separate species of marine life have genetic patents associated with them. "It's everything from microorganisms to fish species," says lead author Robert Blasiak, a conservation researcher at the University of Stockholm who was shocked to find out how many genetic sequences in the ocean were patented. "Even iconic species" -- like plankton, manta rays, and yes, sperm whales. Of some 13,000 genetic sequences targeted by patents, nearly half are the intellectual property of a company called Baden Aniline and Soda Factory (BASF).
I mean, are someone that breeds whales infringing on these? Obviously using the DNA is involved...
How can you patent something you didn't create? Copy-pasted genetic sequences are just copy-pasted prior art libraries!
CAPTCHA: "Lordship"
Some things shouldn't be patented. We nearly lost WW1 due to airplane patents.
Semper Fi!
Someone ought to found a nation that makes its fortune on violating copyright, patents and trademarks. The big businesses will bitch, but when this country is making artwork, scientific research and generic prescriptions for a fraction of the cost, imagine the demand it would generate. Anyone who could pull this off would be very, very rich.
n/t
It ain't live, baby!
Why am I reminded of this:
The Right to Read by Richard Stallman
This article appeared in the February 1997 issue of Communications of the ACM (Volume 40, Number 2).
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
TFA says it. It is BASF, so yes, it's a spin-off of a Nazi big "pharma" [1], IG-Farben.
[1] For some macabre value of "pharma", mind you.
This has accelerated science by 20 years because no government usaf going on that fishing expedition on that scale. However, with the possibility of some profit, three companies have put a shit ton of money into basic research. Patenting the research is publishing it, and its a lot better that you pay them for some life saving research then it never happen and you die.
I recall a uninamous SCOUTS ruling that states that naturally occurring genetic sequences cannot be patented. Shouldn't this apply to this case?
Actually, it's not a spin-off. It is IG Farben itself. When seven german chemical companies in the 1920ies decided to form a trust, they did it by signing over all shares of six of them to the seventh, and the holder of the shares got shares of the seventh in return. The seventh company in question was the BASF (which is Badische Anilin- & Soda-Fabrik), which after that renamed itself in IG Farben.
The Supreme Court ruled against this very issue. These patents should be disqualified, since the ruling by the Supreme Court stating that those components in nature cannot be owned. The Myriad Genetics case. This precedent can be applied here as well.
That certain German chemical company happens to be the largest chemical company in the f*cking world by turnover.
thanks for providing me very informative information thanks for sharing keep on sharing like this Government and Non Government exams. We hereby are creating a repository of all previous years papers, exam results and study tips for various exams
GENES.
Patents exist to encourage research, development, inventing new things, and sharing that knowledge instead of keeping it a secret. Researching whale genes costs money, so if there were no patents then either the company would keep its discoveries locked in a safe or anyone would be able to freely leech off of them.
Patenting the obvious is a separate issue.
So, now when a boy whale and a girl whale get together... do they need a license? can they be sued?
... intellectual property of a company called Baden Aniline and Soda Factory (BASF)
BASF are actually the worlds largest chemical producer, with revenues (2017) of $75 billion USD and operations around the globe.
Please understand what a patent protection provides, and what not.
A patent only prevents the commercial exploitation of the protected patent topic by competitors. It explicitly does *not* prevent *anybody* from studying and researching the patent matter, even with the explicit aim to circumvent the patent, to understand the issue beyond what is disclosed in the patent, or the commercialization of development results designed to avoid the patent matter.
Better change your password, dude.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
N/T.
Check your premises.
Correction ... not TFA, but rather the summary refers to BASF as if it is some obscure, unknown company.
You make a good point if the DNA they patented is for the specific individual animals they researched. If you were to do the same thing with a different whale and the patent didn't apply, this suddenly doesn't appear to be that big of an issue.
If you want to do marine research and don't want to bother with the steps already done, use their patent with license.
So, are they going to sue those $MARINE_LIFE when they reproduce?
It is seriously f*cked up that patents would be granted on discoveries instead of inventions.
Oh, "a company" -> BASF is not exactly an unknown. Far from it.
How the fuck can you patent a goddamned gene sequence of an animal which existed beforehand??? They didn't create it.
You might as well patent oak trees.
It should not be possible or legal to patent something which is naturally occurring like that. It's not an invention, it's not even a discovery, it's mere cataloguing of things which existed already. Anybody with the right technology can sequence these same damned genes.
Corporate lawyers need to be fucking hanged in the town square and lit on fire, along with the fucking morons who work in patent offices.
That's so fucking stupid it isn't funny.
Capitalism is a terminal fucking condition.
Well it's not an american company so what can you expect?
Yeah, but IG-Farben was taken apart 1950 by the West Allies: that's what I meant by "spin off". OTOH you're right in that BASF is one of the bigger turds coming out of that -- the other is Bayer, which now has Evil Monsanto embedded in its cytoplasma).
To note that they got an especially friendly treatment after the war, due to their strong ties to Exxon (!) and DuPont.
Spawn of the devil.
A patent only prevents the commercial exploitation of the protected patent topic by competitors. It explicitly does *not* prevent *anybody* from studying and researching the patent matter, even with the explicit aim to circumvent the patent, to understand the issue beyond what is disclosed in the patent, or the commercialization of development results designed to avoid the patent matter.
I am only personally familiar with WIPO patent law, of which the above statement matches.
But I am curious if that matches German patent law or not?
I always assumed Germany was a treaty member of WIPO, but seeing as under WIPO prior art would make such a patent not valid in the first place, does that imply they are not?
If they don't follow WIPO law and these patents are valid within the borders of Germany, does your above statement apply to Germany either?
Being a part of the rest of the wider world I suppose it wouldn't matter to anyone else what German patent law is if not part of WIPO, but such a claim like they are implying does interest me in what other ways their patent law doesn't align with the rest of the world and if their patents are as limited in scope as they are for the rest of us.
Treating it like BASF is some random no-name outfit, not the largest chemical company in the world...
I remember hearing this a lot from my TV over the past few years: "WE DON'T MAKE A LOT OF THE PRODUCTS YOU BUY. WE MAKE A LOT OF THE PRODUCTS YOU BUY BETTER." That was the BASF slogan for a lot of years. It certainly takes on new meaning with this article.
Is this the same BASF that made those long-lasting audio cassette tapes in the 70s and 80s?
The turd label should go to TDK, but they must have spent a cr*pload of money to get their product placement in Harrison Ford-Ridley Scott's BladeRunner
These patents only exist for a limited amount of time, and then they expire. In the United States, I think this is at most twenty years.
The article doesn't mention expiration, or limited duration. Those are limits on the "ownership" this (evil) corporation has over the "heritage of mankind" after they spend $$$ sequencing genes and coming up with a novel use for that genetic material.
Doesn't this also depend on where you live, and what courts decided to uphold which patents? I remember reading about how a lot of Word Trade Organization work was done to make it so there was some sort of BASIC agreement on intellectual property rights.
So who exactly do you tink was going to fund this research and give it away? Domain squatters don't discover jack shit. However, DNA sequencing and the amazing amount of work to then identify what those sequences actually do requires a lot of work.
How exactly does this make it any better ? Genes occur in nature they're not something invented. Why shouldn't a competitor exploit a gene ? It's not as if this gene is the product of the company that has the patent. It's like saying that a company can have a patent on cow's milk and no other company or person in the world can milk cows.
We are failing as a society...
Marines have their own genes, and they're patented?
In the US, plant and animal patents apply to breeds and sequences that you created as variations from the natural. Does German law allow companies to put legal dibs on purely natural gene sequences?
That's precisely why genes can't be patented in the United States. In the US, one can't patent natural phenomenon, nor "the laws of nature" (the laws of physics etc) because those can only be *discovered*, not invented.
Btw the fact that "the laws of nature" aren't patentable is the bit of law that disinformation blogs use to trick their readers, and pretend that anything that can be described in mathematical terms isn't patentable. "The laws of nature" includes not just gravity, but also "the laws of mathematics". The liars make the
incorrect jump from "the laws of mathematics" to "anything that can be described in mathematical terms", saying "you can't patent math". That's not really true - you can't patent the laws of physics or math, so you can't patent gravity, but you can patent a new elevator design. An elevator USES gravity. You can't patent the associative law of addition, you can patent a cool new technique load balancing across a world-class network, which uses mathematical concepts in its implementation.
Bunch of fish are violating their patents.
That's precisely why genes can't be patented in the United States. In the US, one can't patent natural phenomenon, nor "the laws of nature" (the laws of physics etc) because those can only be *discovered*, not invented. BASF is in Germany.
Btw the fact that "the laws of nature" aren't patentable in the US is the bit of law that disinformation blogs use to trick their readers, and pretend that anything that uses math is unpatentable. "The laws of nature" includes not just gravity, but also "the laws of mathematics". The liars make the incorrect jump from "the laws of mathematics" to "anything that uses math", saying "you can't patent math". That's the same as saying nobody could ever patent an elevator because "you can't patent physics".
You can't patent the laws of physics or math, so you can't patent gravity, but you can patent a new elevator design. An elevator USES gravity. You can't patent the associative law of addition, you can patent a cool new technique for load balancing across a world-wide network, which uses mathematical concepts in its implementation.
no further comment
quality? :-)
Nobody stops them keeping their 'research' to themselves. It's not an invention to do that research, and not patentable.
Nobody owes BASF money to be allowed to use these genome sequences that BASF did not invent just because BASF tries to lay false claim of ownership.
1920's - Yay! Revolution of the proletariat! Peasants and farmers rule the land at last! Down with feudal industry! ...
1930's - Oh crap Japan is kicking our ass. Maybe some industry is needed after all...
1940's - Yay! Industrial revolution! Let's convert all the farms into foundries!
1950's - Oh crap I guess we do need to grow food. Cultural revolution! We must purge the impure elements to finish the revolution!
1960's - Oh I guess you can't eat culture. Hey Soviets, little help here? Yes? No?
1970's - Hey US, how do you do farming again?
1980's - Hey Japan, how do you do industry again?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Is this where God sues on the basis of prior art?
The one where the whales come back - and are pissed when they get here.
BASF thought a "Sperm Whale" meant something else, something penisey and profitable!
So much disappoint.
At BASF we don't make the marine life you see. We make the marine life you see better. With frickin laser beams attached to their heads.
You realize so much has been documented on so many species genes is because of the patentability, right?
We would be nowhere near here without it, and almost certainly still would not be by the time the patents would have expired.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
reference:
https://www.basf.com/en/company/about-us/history/chronology/1925-1944/1939-1945/kampfstoffe-und-zyklon-b.html
Currently in the US, to be patentable, an invention must be new (novel), useful, produce something useful for a particular purpose, and not be obvious to someone skilled in the art. Obviousness is not in retrospect - the question whether a practitioner who hadn't seen the patent would do it that way, NOT whether, after having read the patent, they'd say "oh yeah, that makes sense".
In computer science, another name for an algorithm is a "machine". Machine and algorithm are one and the same. A pocket watch implements an algorithm - the number of teeth on this gear divided by the number of teeth on that gear, etc. It's a machine, or algorithm, made up of gears (multiplications) arranged in a certain way to yield a useful result.
A microchip is similarly a machine made of very many transistors. A new chip may do a new thing, with a new machine built by arranging transistors differently. When people design a new microchip, they don't draw a picture showing where all the transistors should be. Instead, they write CODE describing the machine. Software then analyzes that code and the output is one of the several arrangements of transistors that can be used to implement that machine. Several different arrangements can implement the same machine - putting this group of transistors on the top vs the bottom doesn't change the design and function of the machine. The machine, then, is defined by the code.
What language is that code written in? What language is used to create the machine? It can be Verilog, a language designed for that purpose. It can also be C, the language operating systems and a lot of application software is written in. A cool and useful thing about that is that prior to render the machine as transistors, the designer can run the machine as software. If it does the right thing when run as software, it is guaranteed to do the same thing when rendered as silicon, because it's the same machine.
The same machine, the same invention, can be "printed" issuing silicon or bits stored on the hard drive.
I remember them being suppliers of some of the more high-end cassette tapes in Soviet Union back in 80s! :)
How things changed...
Paul B.
BASF is not just "a German chemical company", it is THE largest chemical manufacturer in the world, and it's well-known
It is also one of remaining parts of IG Farben concern (of Zyklon B fame), together with Bayer (who purchased Monsanto of Agent Orange and GMO fame).
There already is A LOT of power in A FEW global companies. SF writers were right in their observations from 60 years ago.
That lead to the only appropriate response being "yeah, whatever"
followed by "I'll just set up my research or company on a beautiful carribean island."
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
How is this even possible? How can you patent it before you know what those genes do (even if you think that they should be patentable in the first place). It's like someone patenting random shapes of wood because they might figure out if they're gears some day.
In computer science, another name for an algorithm is a "machine". Machine and algorithm are one and the same. A pocket watch implements an algorithm - the number of teeth on this gear divided by the number of teeth on that gear, etc. It's a machine, or algorithm, made up of gears (multiplications) arranged in a certain way to yield a useful result.
It isn't, and they're not the same. Nothing you've written here bears any resemblance to reality or truth. What you've written is a very self-serving piece of bullshit. An algorithm is not a machine
Browse through chapter 1 and maybe chapter 2 of the Computer Science 101 textbook and get back to me on that.
In later chapters you'll learn that any algorithm written in what's called a "regular language" is equivalent to a category of machines called a finite-state machine. You can draw the machine showing it's parts pictorially, or describe them with code. Tools are available to translate from one representation to the other.
You'll also learn that any algorithm written in a recursively enumerable Language is a Turing machine. You can draw the parts of the machine, or describe them with code. Either way represents the same machine. You'll need these definitions because in CS 202 you'll learn how to design and construction finite state machines. You'll want to know whether your algorithm is in that category. For example, any algorithm/machine that parses Perl-compatible regular expressions isn't finite-state, simply because Perl has extended REs to no longer be regular. They are irregular, and therefore require a Turing machine.
You'll learn that your computer is a certain type of Turing machine, called a Von Neumann machine, implemented as microcode in the CPU. In later CS courses, you might work on implementing precisely the same machine that the microcode implements, except in user land code like Virtual box does. Alternatively, you can take the class about implementing that same Von Neumann machine entirely in silicon, like some early CPUs did.
Anyway, read a few pages about the topic and get back to me.
Yeah, the Allies basicly reversed the merger of 1925.
> If only the PTO would bother to only approve those patents that weren't obvious. Like the Eolas patent as a shining example?
I think it's interesting that USPTO rejected that application for obviousness - three times. Each time they sent it back with more documentation, arguments, and perhaps changes to the application, saying why exactly what the patent covered wasn't obvious. It would be interesting to read those submissions. Later, multiple hearings, in court and at USPTO, said it wasn't obvious (after carefully distinguishing between what *was* patented and other things not patented that are somewhat similar). Of course in the end the final determination was that the patent was not valid.
Most patents are fairly clear cut, but that one is weird. Since the patent office rejected it three different times, clearly it wasn't a lazy patent examiner just rubber stamping whatever. The later hearings and court ruling agreeing with the examiner, that the final version wasn't obvious, also suggest the examiner wasn't reckless. Perhaps wrong, but not obviously completely wrong, since multiple courts agreed. I'm not sure exactly where the process broke down on that one.
One possible structural change would be to make it so with each rejection, the standard to reverse the rejection gets higher. That would encourage inventors to first submit something that they expect will approved, rather than starting out shooting for the moon and then submitting a more and more proper version until one eventually gets approved. It would be a bit like the instant replay rule in the NFL - calls can only be reversed if they are clearly wrong, not if it's a close call. A similar rule for patents would encourage inventors to submit a non-obvious version of the patent the first time.