Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nearly Half the Patents on Marine Genes Belong To Just One Company (smithsonianmag.com)

Posted by msmash on from the what's-happening dept.

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).

87 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How can you patent something you didn't create? Copy-pasted genetic sequences are just copy-pasted prior art libraries!

    CAPTCHA: "Lordship"

    1. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because lawyers and idiotic, corrupted and ignorant politicians. One would think you'd have to look really hard for a clearer case of "discoveries", which are not patentable, but ofc that goes out the window when there's sufficient money involved.

    2. Re:Prior art by Holi · · Score: 2

      But it's still not an invention, it's a discovery. I could understand patenting the process, but not the genes themselves.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    3. Re:Prior art by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      How can you patent something you didn't create? Copy-pasted genetic sequences are just copy-pasted prior art libraries.

      TFA: " For example, Blasiak notes that BASF has been harnessing the genes of some tiny aquatic lifeforms in an effort to produce designer health foods: âoeTheyâ(TM)ve been splicing genes from different microorganisms into grapeseed and canola, then taking the seeds and seeing if they can produce oils that contain omega-3 fatty acids,â he says."

      Sounds to me like they created those modified grapeseed and canola plants.

      In the United States, since Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. 576 (2013), you cannot obtain patents on "copy-pasted genetic sequences." You can, however, obtain patents on things that you build out of combinations of such sequences, just like you can obtain patents on things that you build out of combinations of pre-existing machine parts.

    4. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like they created those modified grapeseed and canola plants..

      If they wrote the code themselves without looking at naturally occuring sequences, maybe. But if they spliced it from something else then its just copy-paste.

    5. Re: Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I used to work for Amgen, the largest botech company. What they usually do is patent the genomic sequence for use as a âoehybridization probeâ. For those who are not familiar with genetic engineering technologies, suffices to say this type of patent is enough to prevent anyone from doing any kind of research and development related to that genomic sequence, ergo the gene containing it and the encoded gene product (protein, RNA) without paying royalties to the company.

    6. Re:Prior art by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      If they wrote the code themselves without looking at naturally occuring sequences, maybe. But if they spliced it from something else then its just copy-paste.

      Fine. Then copy-pasted genetic sequence as you're defining them are and should be patentable. A grapeseed or canola plant that produces omega-3 fatty acids does not exist in nature. It will have been created by people. Which negates your base question "How can you patent something you didn't create?"

    7. Re:Prior art by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      May as well point out that the parent is highly abbreviated: canola produces a minor amount of ALA, but no EPA or DHA, which are the marine omega-3s that are being referenced in TFA.

    8. Re:Prior art by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      It's not plagiarism when you cite your sources.

    9. Re:Prior art by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      It's not plagiarism when you cite your sources.

      "Only please always to call it 'research.'"

    10. Re:Prior art by Archtech · · Score: 1

      You need to know what it does.

      Ah, that's interesting. Does it mean you need to know *everything* that it does - or only just one thing?

      If the former, you can never be sure you do know everything it does.

      And if the latter, that's such a trivial requirement it's meaningless. E.g "gene B keeps genes A and C apart".

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    11. Re:Prior art by Archtech · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the underlying legal principle is something like this:

      "You can patent anything that you can make money from".

      Because then you will have spare money to give to legislators, politicians, officials, judges, prosecutors, patent attorneys, etc.

      And that's the whole ecosystem right there.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    12. Re:Prior art by Archtech · · Score: 1

      I like your thinking.

      Maybe everyone, say at primary school, should be compelled to sign a legal document saying, "I agree that I have been contaminated by exposure to the works of Nature, and therefore any derivative work that I ever create may be the property of Nature".

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    13. Re:Prior art by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      If they wrote the code themselves without looking at naturally occuring sequences, maybe. But if they spliced it from something else then its just copy-paste.

      Fine. Then copy-pasted genetic sequence as you're defining them are and should be patentable. A grapeseed or canola plant that produces omega-3 fatty acids does not exist in nature. It will have been created by people. Which negates your base question "How can you patent something you didn't create?"

      Wrong way around. Thats like saying the pencil should be patented while the design you draw with it is not. You shouldn't be able to patent the gene but if you do something and make a different product with it, such as a omega 3 grape, then that is what you patent. Unless you want to start sueing everytime a fish fucks.

      Who is even issuing these patents?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    14. Re:Prior art by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Wrong way around. Thats like saying the pencil should be patented while the design you draw with it is not.

      No, he defined "copy-pasted genetic sequences" as including the combination of the marine gene with a plant. The combination of the marine gene with the plant is the design, not the pencil. The patentability of genetically modified organisms was settled 30 years ago, if not even earlier when considering bacteria (1980) and conventionally bred crop plants (1930).

      You shouldn't be able to patent the gene but if you do something and make a different product with it, such as a omega 3 grape, then that is what you patent

      A grapeseed or canola plant that incorporates a marine gene to produce omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) is the different product, and is exactly what I said would be patentable.

    15. Re:Prior art by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      besides that what does it meant to patent a gene. Don't gene's have multiple variants. how do you know one gene is sufficiently like another to infringe? can I patent all genes that produce fatty acids? I mean copywrite would seem more appropriate ( as it is used for code and art ).
      Does any one know what these patents actually cover. Is the gene or is it something like 'the method to identify the gene'. Or the 'method to replicate' the gene.

      I fail to see how anyone can patent something they did not invent , but rather discovered. I'm glad there was no patent on North America ;)
       

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    16. Re:Prior art by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Wrong way around. Thats like saying the pencil should be patented while the design you draw with it is not.

      No, he defined "copy-pasted genetic sequences" as including the combination of the marine gene with a plant. The combination of the marine gene with the plant is the design, not the pencil. The patentability of genetically modified organisms was settled 30 years ago, if not even earlier when considering bacteria (1980) and conventionally bred crop plants (1930).

      You shouldn't be able to patent the gene but if you do something and make a different product with it, such as a omega 3 grape, then that is what you patent

      A grapeseed or canola plant that incorporates a marine gene to produce omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) is the different product, and is exactly what I said would be patentable.

      Then I guess I misunderstood you, sorry about that, as you were.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    17. Re:Prior art by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Is this where God sues on the basis of prior art?

      God is fairly new, he is predated by countless other divine creators. The reason God doesn't perform miracles anymore is that he was sued by Nammu. Nammu claimed prior art at having created the earth and sent God a cease and desist letter.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    18. Re:Prior art by 1ucius · · Score: 1

      "Does any one know what these patents actually cover. "

      That was the old U.S. rule i.e., you could patent it if you knew what it did. Now, you're kinda out of luck.

    19. Re:Prior art by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      A grapeseed or canola plant that incorporates a marine gene to produce omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) is the different product, and is exactly what I said would be patentable.

      except for (at least) three major problems that prevent patenting:

      You can't patent things, and you can't patent ideas, you can only patent inventions, i.e. specific processes and methods for doing specific things.

      And thirdly, you can't patent the obvious. Getting commonly grown plants to produce more useful nutrients by copying the genes that produce those nutrients from one organism to another is completely fucking obvious, not just to an expert in the field but to even the most lightly-informed layman.

      It might be possible to patent the specific process of copying the genes from one organism to another (if it's novel enough), but not the result and not the idea of doing so.

    20. Re:Prior art by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      I've only been doing this for a couple od decades. I'm sure that this will be good.

      [First,] You can't patent things

      The USPTO explicitly disagrees with you ("35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define 'things' or 'products' while the first category defines 'actions' (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed)."). You can, in fact, patent things.

      "[Second,] You can't patent ideas

      Good thing that I didn't mention patenting ideas. I mentioned patenting a genetically modified plant. Which, again, you can, in fact, do.

      "And thirdly, you can't patent the obvious.

      Merely calling something obvious does not make it so. How do you propose to do it? With what gene, inserted where within the genome, using what promoter, via what vector or editing process?

      "A general incentive does not make obvious a particular result, nor does the existence of techniques by which those efforts can be carried out." In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed.Cir.1995). Trying "each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful" is not a disqualifying sort of "obviousness," and neither is "explor[ing] a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it." In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

      It might be possible to patent the specific process of copying the genes from one organism to another (if it's novel enough), but not the result and not the idea of doing so.

      Yes you can (see claim 24). And the Supreme Court of the U.S. will even let you enforce the patent.

  2. Oh Ra! by MellowBob · · Score: 1

    Semper Fi!

  3. Re:We need another country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    So, basically China?

  4. The Right to Breed by Martin+S. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:The Right to Breed by edi_guy · · Score: 1

      Wow...that's the first time I've read that. Spookily prescient.

  5. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    If God ever gets copyright rights, I foresee a LOT of prior art patent lawsuits.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  6. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    Marine patents are mostly useful for trolling.

    A lot of people are getting salty over these.

  7. What about that SCOTUS decision? by MadCat221 · · Score: 1

    I recall a uninamous SCOUTS ruling that states that naturally occurring genetic sequences cannot be patented. Shouldn't this apply to this case?

    1. Re:What about that SCOTUS decision? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I recall a uninamous SCOUTS ruling that states that naturally occurring genetic sequences cannot be patented. Shouldn't this apply to this case?

      FTF:

      In the past, cases about patenting genes have reached the highest courts. In a unanimous ruling of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court displayed a willingness to combat the corporate patenting of DNA, asserting unanimously that snippets of human DNA cannot be patented.

      For areas beyond national jurisdiction like the high seas, though, there is currently little legal precedent to draw on—“very patchwork legislation,” Blasiak says. The Nagoya Protocol, ratified by 97 parties and in force as of 2014, attempted to lay out a system of standards for monetizing biodiversity within national jurisdictions. But applying that protocol to the high seas isn’t really feasible, says University of California at Los Angeles environmental law scholar James Salzman, because the open ocean is jurisdiction-less.

      So with BASF owning ocean life, and Bayer buying Monsanto and owning plant life . . . it looks like German chemical companies are getting close to cornering the market for life on this planet.

      So . . . y'all best be learning German . . . nicht wahr?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:What about that SCOTUS decision? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      For areas beyond national jurisdiction like the high seas, though, there is currently little legal precedent to draw on—“very patchwork legislation,” Blasiak says.

      But patent litigation happens in national courts. SCOTUS decision means the US DNA patents are invalid in a US court. And since they are US patents, they are also invalid in a non US court.

      Perhaps BASF/Monsanto plans to lobby legislators to make the patent legal after they purchased it? It seemed to be the strategy for software patent in EU at some time.

  8. Re:What company is it? by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  9. Obviously! That's what patents are for by shyisc · · Score: 1

    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.

  10. When a boy whale and girl whale get together... by LostMonk · · Score: 2

    So, now when a boy whale and a girl whale get together... do they need a license? can they be sued?

  11. Re:What company is it? by jbrown.za · · Score: 1
    TFA refers to BASF as if it is some obscure, unknown company.

    ... 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.

  12. Exclusive rights for research and development? NO! by Wdi · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Re:Nearly Half the Patents on Marine Genes Belong by dwywit · · Score: 1

    Better change your password, dude.

    --
    They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  14. There is something fishy about this. by forkfail · · Score: 1

    N/T.

    --
    Check your premises.
  15. Re:What company is it? by jbrown.za · · Score: 1

    Correction ... not TFA, but rather the summary refers to BASF as if it is some obscure, unknown company.

  16. $DECIDERS to be keel-hauled by 4im · · Score: 1

    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.

  17. Re:What company is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  18. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

    If God ever gets copyright rights, I foresee a LOT of prior art patent lawsuits.

    Kind of aside from the major topic, hearing about patenting genes and the dinosaurs' fossils being sold on auctions and all the law, which is focused more on accumulating money than expanding knowledge (which for me - the knowledge and people - are the true value of civilization) it came to me, a purely theoretical thought: what if some alien aristocrat bought the whole solar system like 5bln years ago (a gas cloud then). So he comes and claims his property and says, OK I see you're sentient beings, I will not be harsh and I will compromise, lets agree that I own the Earth but the law of the land you created applies (a side note: in the US anything found on your property belongs to the owner and in some states the owner has the right to kill any trespassers without a warning).

    So as the old proverb says: beware of what you wish for, because it might come true (my addition) and you might be on the other side.

  19. BASF Slogan by gazelam · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:BASF Slogan by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      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.

      BASF, we don't make the whales in the sea; we just watch them screw each other.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  20. ... For Twenty Years, or So, Depending on Where by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:... For Twenty Years, or So, Depending on Where by PPH · · Score: 1

      after they spend $$$ sequencing genes and coming up with a novel use for that genetic material.

      First of all, gene sequencing has become pretty cheap over the last few decades. And I didn't see where they came up with a novel use and based a patent on that. It appears that they are taking an entire genome and sitting on it to block others from developing products.

      Now here's an interesting idea: When I patent some gizmo, I have to describe what each part does in the patent claims. Does BASF have to describe the function of each part of the DNA sequence? If not, how is the patent claim valid?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  21. Re:Exclusive rights for research and development? by etash · · Score: 1

    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.

  22. I didn't know that by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

    Marines have their own genes, and they're patented?

    1. Re:I didn't know that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oorah!

  23. You can only patent "art." by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    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?

  24. Which is why can't be patented in the US by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Funny

      I must say, in this instance. The US got it right and the Germans got it wrong.

      I can see patenting a gene they created, or patenting a non obvious use for that gene (putting whale DNA into a cat to create a cat with a blowhole).

      To patent a gene in nature seems a ridiculous concept to me.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I can see patenting a gene they created, or patenting a non obvious use for that gene (putting whale DNA into a cat to create a cat with a blowhole).

      Stop giving them ideas. The last thing we need is to find ways to make cats more annoying.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I can see patenting a gene they created, or patenting a non obvious use for that gene (putting whale DNA into a cat to create a cat with a blowhole).

      Would be just as ridiculous a patent as patenting the original blowhole DNA.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      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.

      An elevator is a physical mechanism that does something innovative. That it uses gravity (it doesn't any more than a lever does and is wholly dependent upon orientation) is irrelevant.

      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.

      Patenting an algorithm is currently allowed. Should it be? That's been a back and forth question with proponents on both sides. However, an algorithm is nothing more than a mathematical expression with potentially some physical model conditionals thrown in.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US by MooseTick · · Score: 2

      "a cat with a blowhole"

      Isn't that a furry?

      --
      Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
    6. Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US by 1ucius · · Score: 1

      I respectfully disagree. Figuring out which specific genetic sequence/mutation corresponds to a specific physical condition (and thus, creating the ability to test for that condition) is a hugely important and difficult problem.

      The U.S. kinda says that you can patent in this area if the test method itself is novel. But that rule ignores the fundamental nature of the problem, namely that the invention is information content itself. The way you read that information (e.g., sequencing vs. some specific test) is irrelevant.

      And the U.S. rule is having practical effects. The whole field of individualized medicine is struggling with funding.

    7. Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      But could you give my wife a new blowhole. Hers stopped working when we got married.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Maybe that is the answer to the mystery of why whales beach themselves... Too much cat DNA, they hate the water...

    9. Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      I must say, in this instance. The US got it right and the Germans got it wrong.

      Not sure about the Germans.. maybe you're thinking of Australians? Anyway, you're right... SCOTUS did get something right. Eventually Australia did, too.

      A June 2013 article, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (No. 12-398), quoted the US Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that, "A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," invalidating Myriad's patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. However, the Court also held that manipulation of a gene to create something not found in nature could still be eligible for patent protection.[127] The Federal Court of Australia came to the opposite conclusion, upholding the validity of an Australian Myriad Genetics patent over the BRCA1 gene in February 2013.[128] The Federal Court also rejected an appeal in September 2014.[129] Yvonne D’Arcy won her case against US-based biotech company Myriad Genetics in the High Court of Australia. In their unanimous decision on October 7, 2015 the "high court found that an isolated nucleic acid, coding for a BRCA1 protein, with specific variations from the norm that are indicative of susceptibility to breast cancer and ovarian cancer was not a 'patentable invention.'"[130]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    10. Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      the difference being that you can't patent "laws of nature" but you can patent novel applications for USING those laws of nature.

  25. That's US law. Can't patent genes in US. Germany by raymorris · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by Megane · · Score: 1

    Now I want to see articles about submarine marine patents.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  27. Re:Stalling science by 20 years. by Megane · · Score: 2

    Isn't that why Germany had so many U-boats in WWII? Because there weren't any... submarine... patents to worry about?

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  28. Chonology by JBMcB · · Score: 2

    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.
  29. Prior art by ledow · · Score: 2

    Is this where God sues on the basis of prior art?

  30. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Not under today's secularist legal system he doesn't. In fact, I'd say that *all* property rights are an infringement on his copyrights.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  31. Oh the horrors by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    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.
  32. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

    I'd say a plague of frogs beats any number of lawyers.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  33. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    I was wondering when I was going to get the atheist argument.

    I would point out that you are saying exactly the same thing I am, but missing the point.

    I think a creator God does in fact care a good deal about his creation- and especially about a legal system desinged to *destroy* his rights over that creation.

    Thus "we don't give a fuck about god, and 'he' doesn't factor into our laws" is actually the entire point of my first sentence, said without misusing the definitions of words (why you would want to rape God is beyond the scope of this discussion- or better yet why you wouldn't- the first half of your sentence is rather confusing, but what can I expect from an ignorant asshole who failed 2nd grade English).

    The rest, well, stealing power from God is rather the point of atheism, isn't it?

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  34. Useful *new* thing, for a particular purpose by raymorris · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Useful *new* thing, for a particular purpose by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      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".

      If only the PTO would bother to only approve those patents that weren't obvious. Like the Eolas patent as a shining example?

      In computer science, another name for an algorithm is a "machine". Machine and algorithm are one and the same.

      No. No amount of mushy mealy mouthed word smithing will make machine = algorithm in terms of patents. To be clear, a "machine" is an implementation of an algorithm. The code you mention is covered under copyright, not patents, as it probably should be. The resulting silicon is a machine, subject to patents, much like design drawings vs, say, a printing press.

      In case you're wondering, I'm on the side of "no" to the question of whether pure business processes can be patented.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:Useful *new* thing, for a particular purpose by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      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, but if you can sucker people into believing that it is, then that justifies patenting software.

      This bullshit is propaganda of the same order as the term "intellectual property" - designed to sucker people into believing that copyrights, patents, and trademarks are a) all the same kind of thing, and b) magically akin to physical property and therefore intuitively deserving of the same protection under the law.

  35. Re:Stalling science by 20 years. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Some things shouldn't be patented. We nearly lost WW1 due to airplane patents.

    We should have placed a patent on Nuclear Weapons. That would have prevented Kim getting them.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  36. Re:Is It Live Or Is It BASF? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    BASF, we love to make you smile. BASF, just do it.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  37. BASF??? by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    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.

  38. BASF is THE largest chemical company in world by Moskit · · Score: 1

    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.

  39. It's dumbass things like gene patents by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    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?
  40. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by cas2000 · · Score: 1

    The rest, well, stealing power from God is rather the point of atheism, isn't it?

    That's exactly equivalent to saying "Stealing power from Mithras/Osiris/Thor/Baal/Zeus/Xochipilli/Russell's Teapot/IPU/FSM/other-fictional-entity is rather the point of atheism, isn't it?"

    No, the point of atheism is to not be enslaved by absurd fairy tales.

    BTW, you religious types ought to be grateful that copyright has only existed for a few hundred years - otherwise your religions would never have survived the copyright-infringement law suits over their origin stories.

  41. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by cas2000 · · Score: 1

    So, at first your claim was that the point of atheism was to "steal power from god". Now it is to "ridicule older religions as absurd fairy tales".

    That's called shifting the goal posts. and it's as bullshit an argument method as the rest of what you wrote.

    "God exists, therefore God exists" is not proof of anything, it's a tautology. You don't have to read hundreds of pages of tautological nit-picking to dismiss something as bullshit. You just have to recognise its built-in assumptions and realise that if the premises are bullshit then the conclusions are bullshit.

    BTW, don't think i didn't notice the phrase "older religions" you snuck in there, with the implication that atheism is a religion like any other, just a new one.

    Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the rejection of religion, all of them, because religions ARE absurd fairy tales.

    Worse, the purpose of those fairy tales is to prop up the existing power structures, to tell people to be content with their lot, because the locally-fashionable divinity/divinities have anointed their rulers with the right to rule - therefore any dissent is not only illegal according to secular laws, it is blasphemy and a crime against the local god(s).

    There is no god, or gods. Gods are just stories humans invented to entertain, amuse, scare, and/or control each other.

  42. Patent on what grounds? by E-Rock · · Score: 1

    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.

  43. See chapter 1 of Computer Science 101 textbook by raymorris · · Score: 1

    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.

  44. Re:What company is it? by Sique · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the Allies basicly reversed the merger of 1925.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  45. Re:didn't they make audio casette tapes? by Sique · · Score: 1

    The very same.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  46. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Both are intimately connected, aren't they? Isn't ridicule the first stage of any revolution? I see them very much as the same thing.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  47. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Oh, and I see no reason to respect the opinion of somebody who hasn't bothered to read the basic white papers on the topic and chooses ridicule instead of debate. Your opinion is just worthless bullshit.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  48. Re:Once you patent it what can you do with it? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    I'm well familiar with Buddhism, including Zen.

    Aside from Tibetan, it is atheist. And yes, atheist is religious, and seeking enlightenment is stealing from the power of God.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  49. USPTO rejected it 3 times for obviousness by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > 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.