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).

21 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 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.
    5. 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
  2. Re:We need another country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    So, basically China?

  3. 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...

  4. 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*
  5. 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?

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

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

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

  9. 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 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.
    3. 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
  10. 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; }
  11. 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.
  12. Prior art by ledow · · Score: 2

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

  13. 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.