Slashdot Mirror
DNA Code - IP or Public Domain?
Anonymous Coward writes "A British trust has warned Celera Genomics that data from Human DNA should remain in the public domain to maximize benefits for medical research. Celera is about to patent DNA structures after decoding about one third of the human genome.
The Wellcome Trust is leading moves to stop the information becoming the private property of corporations.
" Celera has been brute-forcing structures, enabling them to beat The Human Genome Project to the punch - and are filing for 6000 patents. Please contact the Wellcome Trust to indicate your support of them. Patent attempts like Celera's stifle scientific progress.Update: 10/26 10:00 by H :Thanks to net_shaman for the pointer to a similar article in The Washington Post.
Even if this were to survive in GB, no country would ever acknowledge such a proposterous idea. I have no doubt that nothing will come of these patents
However this is twisted. Its like me taking a picture of a tree in SOME ONE ELSES yard, and patenting/trademarking/copywriting the tree, instead of my picture of it. If they want to copyright THEIR DATA and charge people to use it, or even their process for GETTING the data, fine. More power to them. Get your own damn dna sequencing process. But Nooo, they cant be sensible. THey go and want to patent carbon based hlife or something. Hmmm, that gives me an idea. All y'all, once the paperwork goes through, you can pay royalties to A. Coward, C/o slashdot.
It's the ultimate in prior art... when you get to court just bring your dad to the stand.
"And when were you born sir?"
"April 3, 1942"
"And did you have blue eyes then?"
"yes"
" I submit to the court your honour that this gentleman had blue eyes before the filing date of the, 'blue eyed patent'."
Did you mean 'hacker' or 'cracker'?
Do you know the diffrence? I don't think you do.
unfortunately what they apparently do is take the sequence without discovering anything and say "we patent any genes found in this sequence". It is an abuse of the system. Many people and lawyers agree but the US patent office has apparently taken the view "patent them all and let the courts sort it out" Se software pantents BP Chapman Bioinformatician
I was thinking about fully approved patents rather than jrg's very important post (score it up!) about provisional patent applications.
I do hope he's right about the very high threshold for proving utility, because exactly as he says: this is what costs the time and the money (and the blood, sweat and tears) now.
To discover the make-up of a protein, with a sequence of a previously unknown type, which blocks incoming self-destruct signals inside the cell, and then to prove beyond doubt that this is what the sequence does, as jrg's team did -- that seems to me a lot more impressive than just going through data automatically, and identifying everything that looks like something somebody else has seen before.
Which is why I don't think the latter should be enough even to get provisional pre-emptive patent rights.
Your statement has truth. All these arguments can be seen in drug development companies. The problems arrise when the patents are too broad which they are companies have gotten right to any technology developed from the use of a sequence in any organismum when patents are given with too little informationwhich they are: companies have gotten patents on genes without knowing what the gene produced or if it produced anything at all when patents are used in a preditory mannerwhich they are I know one of the large companies come to a reseacher and say you have developed your technology using our sequence/ techniques you will sell to us or we will change any other huge amounts of money. This prevents development of new technology which patenting was supposed to encourage. BP Chapman bioinformatician
I don't know the details of US patent law. However, in most countries research into areas covered by patents is explicitly allowed. You are not allowed to use the results without the patent holders assent, but you can research as much as you want to.
Stephan
No, that's prior art. You didn't invent the rain forest or the fungus; you just found it. What you can patent is the process by which you transform the raw fungus into the cancer-curing medicine
The genes already exist! IMHO, that should constitute prior "art". What, IMHO, should be patentable is the transferance process by which you make the more desirably commercial properties.
This would be entirely patentable. You have invented a process to improve the efficiency. Furthermore, it is an original and non-obvious process. But I don't really see what this has to do with your first two examples, or genetics.
Actually, selecting for quality of mate on the basis of looks is a practice that has existed for billions of years. Anything that has lasted that long must have a pretty good evolutionary basis behind it. It really isn't that strange of an idea when you realize that appearance isn't linked to a single gene but to many different genes throughout the genome.
In other words, appearance is an easy way to get a sample of the quality of the rest of the genome.
Remove the patented genes from your body and toss them out the window! Then come out with your hands up! We will try to make this as easy as possible on you! But if you continue this act of piracy by continuing to divide your cells, we'll have no choice but to use force!
Unsurprisingly, that's exactly what the public Human Genome Project is doing. Wellcome Trust, by the way, is putting their money where their mouth is; they fund the Sanger Centre which is doing part of the HGP work (along with several sites in the US).
Disclaimer: I work at one of the US sites, but I'm not a biologist, just a sysadmin. The head of my center compares patenting the human genome to patenting the periodic table; yeah, that would have really boosted chemistry....
Disclaimer: I'm technically a co-author on one of Venter's papers (yeah, who isn't these days with 50-author genome papers), although I've never met him in person.
Venter was head of TIGR, and all of TIGR's sequenced genomes are freely available (see http://www.tigr.org), so I really doubt Venter would stop scientific access to any of the human genome, but commercial use I'm sure will be a different matter. The issue isn't about whether Venter will hide the data from the scientific community but whether other companies will be able to use the data without paying huge fees.
Great observation. This is utter bullshit.
"The electric light is pure information"
-- jimmycarter
The suggestion is that Celera have been doing only this, filing patents solely based on sequence homology.
Yes, this is true though they're using more than simple sequence homology when they have it. Plus, they have a big effort to obtain the actual physical entity: a full length cDNA clone (this can be a very difficult and very costly undertaking). But I think it's OK since they do have to back it up with "proof" within a year or so. I'm sure they'll let the vast majority of the applications lapse. Of course, I could be wrong.
It should also be noted that other companies can work on the same clone up until the time that the actual patent issues. Or so I've been lead to believe.
james
what do you mean by "much faster technique"? You're falling prey to Celera's disinformation. They are using the same technique we (I'm a co-PI on the public genome project) are. They're spending money at a faster rate than we are, that's all. What's not apparent from the Celera press release is that the public project has already released more data than Celera has, and our data is far higher quality. We intend to preempt them: the public human genome sequence will be available in rough draft form by sometime in 2000.
If you can establish that such a "product" has a practical use -- because you have established what the gene does -- then by law the USPTO must grant your application.
One question is whether the law should be changed to specifically make unpatentable the unnatural physical expression of natural DNA sequences. But encouraging Congress to micromanage what is and is not patentable might not be desirable; or easy; or even constitutional.
From what little I know about gene sequencing you need to have some special lab equipment to read the genes and then a computer searches through looking for the sequences. Is this something a project like distributed.net could participate in to speed the "brute force" search for gene sequences to put them into the public domain?
No. Absolutely not.
With trade secrets nobody can know about your process. Nobody can research around it. Nobody can be inspired by it to extend the art still further.
Encouraging trade secrets would be like going back to mediaeval guilds, or the ignorance of the dark ages.
Beowulf clusters ...erm, Genomics!! :)
http://www.beowulf.org.uk/
There's a link from that Wellcome site into this.
Bruce McCollough, Kids in the Hall
Guys -- please pay attention to the public
effort as well. The publically funded effort has
sequenced *more* of the human genome than Celera
currently and is due to (and is on course for)
finishing it to Celera's standards in Spring 2000 - yup - only a couple of months away.
We also have a better grasp of what to do with
it as well (I should know - I write alot of the
software that people use for this).
Celera is making big noise because they are going
to have to rethink their business plan (a weird
effect of the public effort is to make celera
more possessive of their supposed IP).
I think DNA Sequence patents should be allowed
under extremely restrictive terms and with a very
short expiry time (ie, 4 years).
Makes sense to let them have some benefit from their work. There's already a precedent in biochemical research in US universities. Research groups are allowed to keep proprietary their DNA or protein sequences for a certain amount of time, after which it must be made available to the public. I believe the quiet period is 6 months long nowdays.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Luckily James Clerk Maxwell didn't patent his blueprints on Electrodynamics and Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrodinger and Dirac were dedicated to open source, else we would still be computing with an abacus.
How can anyone patent the structure of nature?
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars
Stuff like this proves to me that Capitalism has reached its pinultimate stage of evolution.
I think Marx had a cure for this...
come up with all unique DNA code that simulates the "look and feel" of already existing life forms - they might be able to patent those. Chuck
I know the patent office disagrees, as they freely allow people to patent genes, but that is a clear violation of the patent concept and those people who allowed it should be shown the door. The sad thing is, the only door they're likely to be shown is the one to their new office, as they get to be promoted.
On the religious side (yes, there is an aspect to this that's definitely non-tech), we are approaching the end of the millenium. A flashpoint for several of the world's largest religions, all of which have bloody histories. Patenting something they claim ownership of could be just the trigger we DON'T need. I'd rather NOT be burned at the stake, because some company wanted to cash in on the gene-mapping craze, thank you very much.
Then, it would be an impossible patent to enforce. Yes, you can enforce the means of mapping, but that is VERY different from enforcing the genetic code itself. It'd be impossible to monitor for natural infringement (which WOULD count, as patents count against identical or similar inventions, even when no actual copying took place), and impossible to prove an absence of prior art. (You can't scan the DNA of every living person, let alone everyone who's died in the past 100,000 years.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
While I don't agree that pre-existing natural 'source' should be patentable... I did a little research on it...
When you file for a patent in the US for anything including genome maps, you must publicly disclose it entirely within 2 years for patent protection.
Disclosure includes printed publications and/or a publicly accessible database. The US govt is then required to hold the information back for up to 3 years (usually less).
Now unless I'm mistaken, this means that you can go to IBM's little patent server instead of paying them for the information, though this might be considered illegal if you reprint it without permission.
Now in 1992 the NIH (National Institutes of Health) tried to patent several gene fragments and the PTO sent a rejection notice back to them immediately.
In 1997, the PTO said that it would allow expressed sequence tags (ESTs) to be patented. Now, ESTs are DNA sequences made up to a few hundred base pairs in length that can be used to identify the expression of specific genes.
As far as I'm considered, DNA is nothing more than the source code of life and should fall under the same catagory as algorithms when it comes to patents.
Now, patenting the effects of the new DNA is something entirely different. Should you be able to patent the method of replacing a specific sequence of old DNA with your particular new DNA sequences in order to change something, for example to change hair color in humans?
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
There have been rumblings from within the US govt, since Celera told a Senate Committee that it was planning to make its results freely available; it seems likely from the statements made by various people closely involved that these patents are unlikely to be considered legally defensible.
But in any case, Celera Genomics are guilty of some pretty reprehensible behaviour for the sake of extorting a quick buck...
NP
Can you sum it up in a word? *No.* In a noise? *Whuuuurghhhhh!*
I agree with you. I can see them patenting ways of getting to or manipulating DNA, but patenting the DNA itself should not be allowed.
:)
We should just remind them that God invented DNA and those patents have long since expired.
"Or are they simply saying that if they go to the trouble of describing the genome in a useful way, and packaging it up, that people will have to pay to get that package."
If this is what they're saying they'd be talking about copyright, not patents.
http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+PATBI B-ALL+0+946309+0+7+25907+OF+1+1+1+PN%2f5 %2c878%2c155
... *cough* *cough* just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...
Method for verifying human identity during electronic sale transactions
ahem
Okay, there are a couple of things I want to comment on here: First off, I think these companies are given far too much legal freedom. There should be tougher laws governing just how far is too far, and shut down any companies that tread too close to that fine line. Second, I can't believe this company has the gall to try to patent pieces of DNA. Some people I know argue that this is happening so that they can protect their research, so that somebody doesn't come along and call it their own, but unless I'm mistaken, this falls under the intellectual property rights. This is just yet another corperation trying to set up an international monopoly, but this time they aren't working toward owning the OS market, or even the water supplies, they're trying to own us! And I don't think anybody should stand for that. The day anybody owns a piece of me is the day I go postal. Last but not least, DNA is used in 6 billion humans, and untold trillions of animals, plants, insects, micro-organisms, and virii. Who really owns it? Definitely not some genetics company.
That would be pretty logical, except for the fact that they're not mapping a single individual's DNA, they're mapping all the possible combinations for any given section gene, and the results... or at least, that's my understanding. And I don't really understand how this is patentable or enforceable for that matter... I wish I could find a good, clear, easy to read reference on patent law, as it simply doesn't make any sense to me.
If you have discovered that the presence of those specific numbers have made the paper uniquely useful for some purpose which was previously quite unknown, what is so unreasonable about allowing it to be patentable product ?
Patenting an algorithm does not reflect the work of a company
Arithmetic Coding reflected the brilliance and hard work of Rissanen. If IBM had the good sense to employ him and support his work, don't they deserve the reward on that investment ? And won't it encourage other companies to maintain fundamental research ?
Patents do encourage investment. And patents do reduce trade secrecy. The important thing is to reward only what is genuinely new and non-trivial, and what is identifiably useful.
There's nothing new about patented medicines - the pharmaceutical industry has certianly been doing it as long as its existed. Take Viagra for instance - it's a patented medication. Obviously only that company can sell it. They can charge whatever they want for it. That's their right as the developer of that drug. They can also license it to other parties for sale as a generic, etc.
However.
I would think if someone came up with something such as a cure for AIDS or cancer or diabetes, you would see public demand it, and while I won't say it's certain that no company would do that, no company that ever wanted to produce another product after someone had reverse engineered their product and created a generic would take the actions you've suggested.
You say "If you patent a gene, nobody can USE the gene without a license" If they patent the human genome will we all have to get permission from them to exist and/or reproduce? I am being facetious, but let's get serious... can someone patent nature, or even their view of nature. If you believe in God, then does God already hold those patents?
-"Socrates himself is particularly missed
a lovely little thinker, but a bugger when
he's pissed."
> With trade secrets nobody can know about your
> process.
Wrong, with trade secrets, two groups can know about it.
1. Those willing to sign a NDA.
2. Those capable of reinventing it theselves.
The effect of patents is to exclude the second group.
Patents are a form for legal lobotomy. It denies people the right to utilize their own ideas.
The oil exists. The baking soda exists. The wonder lube is invented by combining the two. This is a new invention and so is patentable. By contrast: The DNA exists. The gene sequence is derived from the DNA by application of a known mechanical process. Nothing new is created or invented.
Ok. How about: The DNA exists. People are overweight. You find out that this particular string of base pairs is related to obesity. Should you be able to patent this to reserve the right to specifically treat obesity by gene therapy?
If the silly Englishman could actually follow through on that threat, he could probably make a lot more money more easily from his discovery of antigravity.
I haven't got cancer yet. I want the companies to have an incentive to do the R&D before I do get it.
------------
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
"French people piss me off..."
Eric Cartman
I've billions of potential flops sitting at home doing absolutley nothing, but seem worthy of the HUGO project. SETI just doesnt seem like my cup of tea...
where do the get off claiming right to MY body!
Technically, the isolated genes are patented as new compositions of matter.
Great! BigCoWorldCom owns the patent for hearts.
You can go to the meat market and get a new one
any time you like. Just think, we can live any
way we want to. Drink gallons of alcohol every
day. New liver is just a click away on eOrgans.com!
Ain't this a great time to be alive!
This aspect is especially amusing, given that most supermodels owe their appearance to significantly more than merely good genes.
Remind me why group #2 would not have to spend much more in legal fees proving in court they did independently discover the idea than they would pay for the original patent license in the first place.
Patenting DNA structures could lead to a whole new form of lawsuit. Since certain aspects of DNA structures are randomly determined (both through mutation and combination during sexual reproduction), it could be possible for anyone to infringe just by living.
I think that's pretty absurd.
"Oh, I'm sorry, we just got the patent on the gene which gives you blue eyes. We felt it was novel because of how it changes the pigment which colors the eye. License the patent or die."
Granted, I doubt that's their intentions. I can see patenting certain processes for building DNA strands, and perhaps even processes for integrating modified DNA within existing tissue. But patenting the DNA patterns themselves is like trying to patent any of nature's creations.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
Exactly what noncommercial entities do you expect to develop that cure for cancer or AIDS, hm? Almost all of the truly worthwhile biochemical research in the developed world is done with at least some corporate money.
The idea of patenting genes is truly offensive to my personal spiritual and political beliefs. How can anyone claim ownership of life itself?
I'm curious what legal outlets we have if a company does suceed in patenting genes -- is there a court of appeals for the patent office? Can a law be passed that invalidates certain patents?
-- 'As it all washes away you know -- as it all is one, no one is alone.' -Cosmic Disorder
It seems like the patent system has gone nuts. (That hasn't happened recently, but quite a while ago, in fact) it's original intention was to protect businesses I'd think, but at the same time to promote "innovation" and "creativity". I wonder if patenting all of this stuff on their part will require practically all DNA researchers to pay them a fee in order to study DNA.
Does this type of patent mean that I won't own the rights to my own blood cells' basic information? That would be scary. Maybe it's not that extreme yet, but never underestimate a corporate entity when it comes to chasing "The Almighty Buck" no matter what the cost in individual freedom.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Patenting Human Genomes? Are these guys totally nuts? So basically your next child might be a violation of their patents because they happen to be the first to decipher what genes cause, say, blonde hair?
If these guys get their patents, then I say it's time to take the whole patent office down in flames. When it comes to human genetics, there can be NO tolerance for attempts like this. How can mankind be free when their genetic codes have been filed, patented, copyrighted and trademarked?
How about be put those terminator genes into our newly genemodified children next? If they want kids, they have to renew the contract we made with that genetics company....
Excuse me sir, but did you pay your Green Eyes taxes today?
And I thought Microsoft was a threat.
http://patent. womplex.ibm.com/details?&pn=US05968742__&s_clms=1# clms
http://patent. womplex.ibm.com/details?&pn=US05962262__&s_clms=1# clms
It would be nice if a real biochemist could confirm it; but it looks to me as if the only genuine new knowledge in the each patent is the sequence information in Claim 1, and an identification that this sequence looks homologous to some other sequence we already know. The remaining claims then reflect the application of standard biochemical techniques, which make the sequence useful.
To be fair, there might be clues in the image pages and the prior art, which I haven't read; but I was struck by the very generic statement in the abstract, "The invention also provides methods for the prevention and treatment of diseases associated with expression of GPI-2h, as well as diagnostic assays". It's not clear (at least to me) that the authors definitely know that any diseases actually are associated with expression of GPI-2h.
...right between the eyes. Ok, I know this is sort of flaimbait, and I know this has probably already been said. But, in my honest and not too humble opinion people who try to control something so incredibly important to the future of humanity for their own benefit are not deserving of the life they have.
Sick, I know, but I wouldn't mind putting a bullet through some of these people's heads. Not that I would if I had the opportunity though....
Everything we are comes from our DNA! Noone has the right (I'm not talking legally, legal be damned) to have exclusive rights to anything having anything to do with the makeup of our entire existence!
Just my opinion
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I'd like to think that governments wouldn't be ignorant enough to let these pricks go and patent DNA... I mean, there's a world of difference between patenting DNA and patenting a toy or a baby bottle or any normally perceptible object.
> research has every right to protect its
> intellectual property by any means neccessary.
Well, surely that depends on what the result is?
Having spent money on something doesn't automatically give
you rights to something you don't own in the first place.
The usual ground for granting patent rights is that
you've invented something. There's nothing self-evident
about this : it was introduced on purely pragmatic grounds.
Discoveries have not historically been protected like this,
and to the extent that they might become so, it's happening
by creeping extension rather than as a result of considered
decision-making. The argument that the amount of work going
into it means that these sequences should be treated as
inventions is rejected by a large majority of those working
in the field - and let's not forget that these others have
done a lot more work than Celera. The belief that a "gene"
is an invented intellectual construct entirely separate from
the sequence is believed equally specious. It's believed to be
very possible that these patents will be struck down by the
courts on these grounds, but there's no certainty in that.
Another point worth remembering is that Celera haven't actually done
anything as dramatic as they imply : their press release states that they've
sequenced 1.2 billion bases, in 40 days. That's 30 million a day, which at
roughly 500 useful bases per sample, comes to 60,000 lanes a day. Using
96-tube 3700s, that's about 600 runs a day. In theory they could manage
over 2000 : clearly their production scale-up is nowhere near complete. At the
moment, the various members of the Human Genome Consortium are still probably
outsequencing them quite comfortably.
IIRC they aim to reach at least 30 billion bases sequenced - 10-times coverage
of the genome : it's going to take them a while yet to get there. And then they
have a large assembly job to do, which is in itself not a trivial task.
Actually, this is a private concern that is doing the patenting. They're beating the government project to the punch by using a faster process I think. Had the government discovered the genes and their functions first, the data would have been in the private domain. When the private concern "discovers" them, they get the rights (to research and drugs) for that particular gene.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Jon Peterson wrote:
A discovery can reasobaly considered IP in some situations, and so can a description.
Yes, but there are three legal forms of IP: patents, trademarks and copyrights. You just can't say "it's valid IP, therefore they can patent it". Trademarks are just plain offtopic here, so I'll talk about the other two.
They could easily justify copyrighting their information packages (and probably are doing so). They charge for the information, and the copyright keeps the people they send it to from redistributing it legally, except for fair use.
They're talking about patenting it. Patenting genes has gone on for a while, particularly in agricultural circles. If you patent a gene, nobody can USE the gene without a license. You buy a bag of genetically altered seed, part of what you are paying for is the license to use the patent on those genes. Here, they are making two big jumps from "mainstream" genetic patents:
* it's human genes now
* it's naturally occuring genes now
People are hopefully going to be more outraged now that we are messing with human genes. On the other hand, it's the second part that makes it more legally outraged. You should never be able to patent a discovery. Patents are for inventions, for novel ways of applying things. I might as well patent the oak tree outside my window, there's a lot of information there, it must be IP.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Patents can hinder process if they are administered badly. They can also be a form or protection for knowledge.
If a patent is administered badly (eg the GIF technology mugging) then this is a bad thing. People won't want to use technology if they expect to get a letter saying "you used our technology - pay us $x or desist".
GIF is an example of a patent that was used right then went bad. The technology was patented, but was opened up to allow people to use. If research was patented this way this would the ok. But there is always the fear when using patented technology that your idea will be lost if the patent is suddenly enforced.
For research nothing should be patented - allow everyone access to use the data or technology.
Patenting DNA is A Very Bad Thing. If you have, for example, a resistance to AIDS, you could suddenly find that your DNA had been patented against your knowledge. Worse still, under existing law there is no way that you can stop this.
Patents for inventions are ok, but patenting nature is a bad thing.
And thus chromosomes. Diploid sets. Haploid. Gametes. Does anyone else see what this means?! The #1 favorite pasttime of the human race will soon come with a price tag! Something tells me the Pope is behind this... soon to be a luxury only available to the societal elite, or dangerous outlaws! Pay-Per-Wank. The end is nigh.
yep. We are much better 'security investigators' then they are. I figure a few 15g hard drives should hold it all...8)
Remember this...no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn....(jim morrison)
"it's original intention was to protect businesses I'd think, but at the same time to promote "innovation" and "creativity". "
No. The Patent system was introduced to promote innovation and creativity, full stop. It was considered that people would not be able to spend years working on new things if there was no way to get a reward at the end, so patents were set up so that the discovery was made public at once, but that the discoverer had commercial rights for a while so they could recoup their losses.
Things have been rather altered in recent times, in favour of business and away from the public domain.
-----
This just in:
In a similar case, SuperHyperGlobalNet has filed an international patent for the human sexual reporoduction process.
"We plan to license the technology to prospective families for a small fee," says SHGN CEO Bob Babimaker. "As it stands, we are looking at a very large revenue stream from countries such as India and China."
Babimaker acknowledges, that accounting will be a problem, especially in cases where application of the process does not directly result in a new human life.
"We've worked out deals with mattress and car manufacturers to have sensors installed which detect a 'rocking' motion. We feel this will cover 90% of the cases in the US, Europe, and Japan. For the rest of the world we plan to employ infrared imaging."
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is reportedly planning his own patent to a competing process. Although details have not been disclosed, insider rumors indicate the process is long and painful, and the participants are forced to restart several times before they get anywhere.
That's roughly the claim : the sequence was there, but it isn't a gene until people study it. I'm told that certain lawyers think this makes sense.
Trade secrets are moraly preferable, since, unlike patents, they don't limit the freedom for other people to use information they have found for themselves.
Exactly. They're not "inventing" anything here that they need to protect, just learning how something in nature works. Patenting human genes is the equivalent of patenting the laws of physics - just because you discovered them doesn't give you the right to prevent anyone else from doing the same.
You should be able to patent something you create, but NOT something you discovered.
If they want something to patent to make money, they should spend the time working on faster ways to decode DNA and determine the effects of genes, not trying to beat others to the genes themselves.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Probably in a situation where your parents have to register you at birth. Similar to getting a social security number, I would think.
:)
~m
You forget though that there was no need for an incentive, seeing as a project was already under way. The company in question took it upon themselves to do something already being done, and now that they are winning are trying to patent it. Is this right?
This has been your anonymous devil's advocacy for the day. :-)
Company A discoveres a cure for /blank/ (cancer, AIDS, whatever you like). A patents the gene sequence change that cures it. Now A revelas to the world that they have this and would like $1000 a pop for it, and, oh yeah, when you get it, it only lasts a month, then something they introduced changes it back to the way it was.
And now what? That one company holds the cure to something in it's hand and can pick and chose who gets it. Or even worse, figure out a cure for a engineered disease they release, and basically hold the world hostage (with a sufficiently good coverup).
Not that this is at all like certain things in other realms (*cough* computers *cough* microsoft) right now.
-Jonathan
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
What we're talking about here is a company(ies) staking claims to the profits of future use of genetic material. Talk about paying liscences for naturally occuring personal traits is b.s., the real deal is use of genetic material in the treatment/modification of organisms.
Since DNA extracted from a lifeform is a naturally occurring chemical, filing a claim on future use of such DNA chains is as valid as laying a claim on water or salt.
It think it's safe to say, at this point, that the USPO needs to get its ass out of its head.
That argument could be extended to say that everything is nature, so nothing can be patented: Mankind is a species of animal that evolved naturally, so our existence, and all its consequences, i.e., everything we do, are naturally-occurring phenomena. Try this: aren't microchips part of nature? They're made out of sand, after all, even though it takes all sorts of machines to turn the sand into the microchips, but then the machines are made by people, who are in turn part of nature, right?
This is vacuous, of course, because when a term is defined so broadly it loses its meaning. If you say that all phenomena are natural, because there is no other kind, then the distinction between something being a "natural phenomenon", an "artificial phenomenon", or just a plain "phenomenon" disappears. While this is technically true, it does not accomplish anything -- the point of the term is to distinguish between those phenomena that occur without the intervention of mankind / technology and those that only occur when we cause them. Quibbling over whether or not our causing them makes them any less "natural" is beside the point.
Now, I definitely agree that patenting genes is an extremely problematic area, but I'm not sure the "Aren't genes nature?" argument is much help. Also, I am very skeptical of the USPTO's competence, in view of all the recent messes with software patents, but I am encouraged by this passage from the post above yours (emphasis added):
3.In order for DNA sequences to be distinguished from their naturally occurring counterparts, which cannot be patented, the patent application must state that the invention has been purified or isolated or is part of a recombinant molecule or is now part of a vector.
Assuming it really works this way, this should take care of problems with the companies claiming that their patents apply to people. I don't have much of a problem with companies owning genes that they really did invent, as long as there is a very sharp distinction between these and "naturally-occurring" (see above) genes. At least this would seem to prevent the equivalent of a "QuickSort patent", e.g., someone patenting blue eyes and claiming that I owe them royalties.
Supposing that they could make a "patch" that could be applied to your genes, e.g., to change your eye color, then it would be reasonable for them to demand a one-time royalty when you buy the modification, provided that then you would fully own that copy, with no "this license may be terminated..." clause. Passing the gene on to your own offspring in the conventional manner would have to be considered "fair use", as would cloning oneself, though reverse-engineering it from a tissue sample through technological means would not.
A natural duration of gene patents would be one full generation, i.e., until a person has been born possessing the gene naturally, to parents also possessed it from birth. Then a reasonable compromise would be for the license to prohibit reverse-engineering while the patent was valid, after which time it would enter the public domain (so to speak).
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
There are two parts to the patent. The first part is what everyone is talking about--the patent submission. The second, and often overlooked by people who have never applied and received a patent is defending the patent. Just because you have a patent doesn't mean you can get attornies to work at defending your patent rights for free. If a person patents a genome, and it's a useful sequence, then a pharmaceutical company will just go ahead and use it, saying "so sue me" When every other pharmaceutical company begins to abuse the patent, he won't have enough money to defend his rights. Defending a patent is difficult and very expensive. So he will be crushed by his own "success." I'd say that the guy patenting 6000 sequences is doing it for posterity, not profit.
This is simply not true. US patent law allows a legal entity to patent a gene sequence (usually just a fragment of a gene sequene, actually) for ALL current and future applications of that sequence information. This means that if a gene X is isolated and patented by company A and used for blood pressure regulation, it is a patent infringement if company B comes along and uses gene X for a hair regrowth drug.
This is why US patent law is silly, arbitrary and dangerous. Many scholars have proposed the type "use case patents" you mention to prevent this type of greedy profiteering, but the USPTO hasn't created such a thing to date.
Even thinking about a private company studying human DNA gives me the willies!
Ah, I see. You want the government to study your DNA, right?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
True. There are lots of patented plasmids out there, and you have to pay lots of companies lots of $$ to use them in your experiments. Take taq polymerase, for example. Used by every molecular biologist in the world, and the patent is owned by one company. This is part of the problem. Because of patents like this, the barrier to entry for molecular research is much higher ($100 per tube of taq?) and there is actually a lowered incentive to do this research. Not good.
"Knowing the sequence isn't the power...knowing what a specific sequence does in different contexts and whether it can be used to control other genes is the major application here."
Not acccording to US Patent Law. If you can successfully patent the sequence to a gene, you own the rights to all applications of that gene. I don't see how this gives researchers incentive to do anything now besides hording gene sequences as quickly as possible.
"You don't argue that maps are copyrighted right? they deserve it for doing all the work and as long as the price is reasonable its fair"
Indeed. Maps may be COPYRIGHTED, but they can't be PATENTED. You can patent a novel, useful, unobvious way of constructing a map, but you cant patent the map information itself. This is how gene patents are fundamentally different than maps.
If researchers were patenting the methods they use to subclone DNA fragments and obtain the sequence information, more power to them. They aren't doing that, however. Instead, they're patenting the data they obtain, which they neither invented nor put work into. That's just plain screwy and exploitative.
"The public needs to educate itself quite a bit because right now it is easy to start "scares" about this sort of thing."
And thank [deity] for that. Its about time that people realized the danger represented by the profiteers at companies like Celera. If Celera et al. want to patent new drugs based on these sequences, then great, but they should be required to do some actual work before being rewarded with de facto monopolies on vital research information.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Hey, how about not being so farking lazy and typing the word "YOU" instead of using the letter "U"?
Your post could be so much more easily deciphered if it had been written properly. Is it not easier to read this:
Isn't the item that is being enhanced partially owned by the person who owns the patent? So, really, they could come back and say that YOUR kids are not ALL yours!! Not only that, but if you had modifications made and were not able to pay for them (after the child was born) then they could REPO your kids..
Is it really that much of a burden to type the extra two characters, that your meaning becomes clear to your fellow man? I had to read your statement a couple of times because I kept stumbling over "ur", gestalting it into "our".
Sheesh...
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
I can understand not donating your research to for-profit organizations. If I had invested as much time and money in the results as I'm sure was invested I'd feel the same way. However patenting it seems counterintuitive to me and thats what I have issues with. Patent all the techniques involved with extracting the data, patent any special tools, but the data itself shouldn't be patentable. That doesn't mean that Venter's data should be public domain, but if other researchers extract the data without violating the patents on the tools and technology then the data should be theirs to do with as they wish. Essentially the raw data is their for anybody to access... if they've got the ingenuity, or you can purchase the data from Venter.
This is all postulating of course, there's no information on what was really patented.
you know dude, you are one big asshole, if you don't like the way the guy writes don't read his fscking post dumbass
The angle of the Dangle is equaly proportional to the heat of the beat. ---Beavis
Bravo! In the real world, you have to feed your family before you save the world. This patent (I agree it's really a copyright) will make this kind of research profitable, and therefore more plentiful. I think people confuse Open Source with an opposition to property rights...
Somebody please moderate the post I'm responding to upwards. I think its a very insightful twist on the line of thought most of us have been following.
DNA and genes are way beyond my area of expertise, but to me the genes themselves already exist and so aren't patentable. The techniques involved in the gene therapy may very well be patentable though. Again, I know nothing about what is involved. I imagine some molecular machine counting down the rungs of the DNA, doing a snip and inserting a benign segment of DNA. The molecular machine should be patentable for that application.
An idea:
/. their laywers.
Write the company, and inform them you wish to discuss terms and costs for the 6000 patents, some of these are in use right now in your body.
When they don't respond, this lack of response is forwared to:
1) Patent office, informing them they are unwilling to defend the patent
2) Human Genome project, again, non-defense
If they respond, and want money, refuse to pay. Ask them to take you to court. When they don't, repeat step 1/2 above.
Bury their legal department.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
This is somewhat absurd... Can I charge my wife for access to my genetic code or vice versa? Maybe we should replace marriage with a "genetic information exchange contract". If they can patent, and then license, 1% of the genetic code of a human, to whom do they owe similarly for the other 99%? How can they patent something they didn't invent anyway?
However, I'm sure the pharmaceuticals companies who'd have to pay fees will be running the propaganda distortion machine overtime on this one.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
A company spending millions of dollars on research has every right to protect its intellectual property by any means neccessary.
No they don't. You can't go around shooting people for violating copyright, you can't drop poison gas in a Hong Kong market to take out sellers of pirated CDs, etc. You can only do what the law allows. And you can only protect what the law allows you to protect.
The alternative to patent is trade secret information hidden from EVERYONE.
You mean everyone you don't have a contractual agreement with. Part of that contractual agreement would be serious damages if the secret is leaked. *This* is the way for companies to protect secret -- but not innovative, which is a requirement for patents -- discoveries.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Patents mean ownership of ideas. But ideas belong to anyone who can think of them.
I don't understand how the need to make money justifies patents. Everyone needs to make money, but that doesn't entail a responsibility on others.
Do the needs of the corporations justify law?
Sounds like they are trying to patent the discovery of some new information. Is that going to hold up? Don't forget, just because you have filed for a patent doesn't mean you will get it.
If they are trying to patent methods to obtaining the information (which is probably the case, as they have 6000 submissions) then I can see some of these patents being granted. That's what patents are for, even if you don't like that idea.
However, if they are patenting the infomation itself, that's an entirely different beanstalk. This would have not only far reaching implications in medicine, but any science as well.
Here in Canada, our patent act says that an invention (something you patent) is "any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter", Canada Patent Act, s2. Does information seem to fall into this category? Doesn't look like it. However, if they word it right, you never know what might come of these patent applications.
Algorithms themselves are not patentable, but if you can word your patent right to include the use of some hardware (i.e., something tangible) then it is possible to get a patent with that algorithm in it. Algorithms are processes (recall you can patent a process), but not something that is tangible or sellable. Information is pretty similar, though it is not a process nor is it something tangible. But is it sellable? If you argue on these grounds, you might end up getting a patent. I'm not in favour of it one bit, but I'm not in control of it either. These are just somethings to consider.
Geoff Wozniak
gzw@home.com
I think the Slashdot folks just wanted to get us riled up about patents again. I was all ready to fire off hateful emails to Celera until I read your post. But wouldn't they copyright stuff like this? I thought patents described an invention or process.
This is just another example of the stupidy of people in their quest for the all-mighty dollar. Makes me think of the Nova show I watched the other day were some idiot was talking about owning parts of space. Sounds like it is time for a internet revolution against the established norm. We need to openly cyberattach these idiots and defeat them before it is to late!!!!!!!!
My name is [insert silly sounding english name here] and I hold the patent for gravity.. if you will not or can not pay, I'll have to discontinue your stream of gravitational forces.. (picture of man, floating away from earth, into space)
---
---
Killroy Woz Here
Actually what Celera is interested in is the small variations in the entire sequence that make us all different from each other. These variations (SNIPs - single nucleotide polymorphisms) are expecially important in the sphere of drug metabolizing enzymes. Some people burn up all their ibuprofen, aspirin, or chemotherapy reigimens at rates that differ from the slower metabolizers. This is determined by the alleles that we inherit from our parents.
Information pertaining to the variability of metabolic rates of drugs both old and new are testable with gene chips and patients. This is where the money will be made from, selling/patenting the information needed to make the gene chip usefull to drug companies and hospitals.
In general, sequence is useless in the bussiness world unless you can profit from it.
A lot of people have posted comments to the effect of `Will I have to pay royalties if they`ve patented the gene for blue eyes?`. That`s not what the patents are for. The patents prevent other researchers from working on the same gene. This means that a company can hold onto a gene that could be a useful target for gene therapy, and no other company would be allowed to research it, even if the company who filed the patent thought it not worth their while to look into it. This is an indisputably Bad Thing.
If you actually look at a gene patent, you`ll see that what`s patented is the isolated form of the gene, not the gene in the context of the genome - along with methods for purifying and assaying the resulting protein. What is not covered in this patent is the gene in situ. So people with blue eyes, or whatever, needn`t get worried. The gene in your body isn`t patented. What`s worrying is the idea that because a company is patenting so much, it`ll be years before they get round to looking at some of the genes, some of which could be useful either in terms of finding out more about the way humans work, or in terms of finding cures for inherited disorders. The company can sit on the gene, safe in the knowledge that, because it`s patented, no-one else is going to research it until they`re ready.
The thing is, this gene patenting idea is fairly recent. But these days, academics, too, are having to patent their research just in order to prevent their work from being stolen out from under them. This goes completely against the information-sharing ethic that has always been a part of academic science.
So, not quite as scary as the idea of paying royalties to some corporation for your brown hair or strawberry birthmark, but scary nonetheless. Mass patenting of genes is already stifling research. Mass patenting of human genes can only make the problem worse.
Patent laws are juristictional, not international. In Canada, patents last for 20 years, FYI.
Geoff Wozniak
gzw@home.com
Somebody please moderate the post I'm responding to upwards. I think its a very insightful twist on the line of thought most of us have been following.
DNA and genes are way beyond my area of expertise, but to me the genes themselves already exist and so aren't patentable. The techniques involved in the gene therapy may very well be patentable though. Again, I know nothing about what is involved. I imagine some molecular machine counting down the rungs of the DNA, doing a snip and inserting a benign segment of DNA. The molecular machine should be patentable for that application.
In this nation, at least, gods have no temporal authority. If Yahweh, or any other god(dess) hasn't applied for the patent, tough beans.
Opinion: I think our patent system is too broken to be appropriately used for genetics (or IT of other kinds).
Facts: I found these quotes helpful in understanding the details of this particular story:
"The Wellcome Trust is the world's largest medical research charity with an annual spend of £400 million. The Wellcome Trust supports more than 3,000 researchers, at 300 locations, in 30 different countries..." --http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/awtprerel0999n15
"We derive revenues primarily from subscription fees from database customers who will retain the rights to any discoveries made using Celera databases. This policy is intended to promote use of our information by a wide variety of users and distinguish Celera Genomics from other companies that seek intellectual property rights to customers' discoveries based solely upon access to those companies' database information. " --http://www.celera.com/CeleraUpClose/SoundBusine
First of all, the assays for this work are inventions, such as Polymerase Chain Reaction. The machines which utilize these assays are patented (and painfully expensive). There is creativity and therefore, invention, in the mapping of the Genome;For example, the designing of the probe/primer sets used in the assays. In short, everything that keeps a biotech company on the edge and competitive has to be patented. By filing in anticipation of a patent the company covers their butt and protects them from spies from other companies. I'm not kidding about the spies. From reading the article, what I gleaned was that Venter is trying to deprivatize the Human Genome, so drug companies cannot monopolize the industry. This preserves the last bastion of competition for all time. Think of what the one company that manages to have the Human Genome could do to the sick and what kind of money they could rake in.
Private industry stepped up to the plate and said that they will finish the task in less time than their overfunded government counterparts. Does anyone here really believe that academia alone would have finished the job?
The reason that Celera has managed to do it so fast is that they are merely churning out the sequences, whereas the academic research labs are actually taking the time to figure out what the genes do. Now, which is the more useful approach?
Here's what happens: The meme of Ridiculous Patents has entered the public sphere. A huge debate starts over what's fair to patent.
Desirable result: Political change might just happen. The patent system is reformed.
If it takes some greedy biological equivalent of UNISYS to force the public focus onto how the patent system sometimes works as a licence to extort, then this is a good thing. Because only then, will it get changed.
In my own experience, the gene-finding aspect of
the sequencing project did not hamper the "progress"
of the sequencing effort; and
look up some popular press articles on Celera. They are too
trying to analyze the data. First thing's first, though:
get the data.
Come on...I'd like to see this guy name one "supermodel," or one "beautiful" person, whose alleged beauty advanced the plight of mankind to even the smallest degree. Think Einstein Think Newton, and others. Were THEY "beautiful"? Would anyone have selected THEM based on their looks in such an auction? Probably not. But their contributions were IMMENSE.
Personally, I can't think of anything more TRITE than the idea of selecting a genetic makeup based on physical appearance - or for that matter, anyone more stupid than those willing to do so.
This URL seems to have a good intro on patent issues, government involvement and Venter and Incyte issues. Venter is in the for front here because he often makes controversial claims. But Incyte and Leroy Hood are both big players as well. The URL:
http://www.funding-first.org/com ment/12/comm2.html
-- Moondog
How about the TIGR/HGS EST data? The data that were published in Nature? Those data are absolutely not available (and I have a refusal in writing from TIGR), if you ask for the complete published data set.
Sorry, but Venter does not have a good track record when it comes to releasing data that are commercially encumbered. In fact, considering the promises made about the TIGR/HGS EST data, it's pretty horrifying to see it all happening again with Celera.
I'm a senior molecular and cell biology major at a major university. This is nothing new people. I have had profs in the past that have been paid upwards of a half a million dollars for gene sequences...specifically promoters. This type of patenting has been going on for a long time now...the public is just now beginning to care about it hence the stir and outrage. There's only a few thousand viruses and bacterial plasmids that are patented. If you can use it as a tool you can patent it. Knowing the sequence isn't the power...knowing what a specific sequence does in different contexts and whether it can be used to control other genes is the major application here. Several organisms have been completely sequenced. The companies that do this then sell the genetic maps to researchers and other companies who find them useful. You don't argue that maps are copyrighted right? they deserve it for doing all the work and as long as the price is reasonable its fair...(of course this is pre mapquest.com) The public needs to educate itself quite a bit because right now it is easy to start "scares" about this sort of thing.
That's not what I said. If one company is given a patent on human genes, then only that company can work with those genes, at least without paying for hugely expensive licensing agreements. If they're in the public domain then any commercial entity can work with them. Now lets see... which route is more likely to result in a cure for AIDS or cancer? That's why I object to patenting of human genes.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Since a lot of the sequencing (finding genes) are done by universities and govermental programs around the world, the genes would probably have been discoverd anyway. So it would have been *far* better if the genes simply was kept secret.
The intention of patents was to protect inventions. Genes are not inventions, genes are discovered. Patents on genes are simply theft. If such patents becomes common, they will be a real treat to the scientific community.Next thing you know, someone is going to patent our oxygen, or something equally ridiculous. I dont know about you, but the idea of someone else owning a patent on DNA that's a part of ME makes me positively livid. I can see medical research in general being patented and regulated, but on that type of scale, where literally EVERYBODY is involved, something akin to Open Source is necessary. I could care less about the molecular structure of any particular drug, but the stuff that's a part of me is stuff I should certianly have the right to access without paying some greedy bastard a bunch of money I don't have.
Naturally, we could extrapolate a worst case scenario, where corps start taking credit for EVERYTHING. Imagine being geneticy engineered and having to pay extra taxes or face travek restrictions and tariffs because of it. Forget taxes, the only two constants are Death and Greed.
-------------
Dear Celera,
I'm sure you're going to get a lot of mail on this issue; let mine be one of the more polite ones.
Frankly, the idea of a company (or organization) having legal hold over the structure of the human body is abhorrent to me; in describing your efforts, the word "monstrous" comes to mind. To counter the standard statement: "I don't care if medical progress slows due to non-patentability of human genes. I'd rather have a body that was 100% mine that had an illness, than pay licensing fees to you for my genes, and be illness free." Any denial you might make about the threat of such licensing is meaningless. Once the genes enter the world of human business, it's inevitable, even if it isn't Celera that ultimately does it. (Ever hear of Compuserve-Unisys, and the GIF file format patent? Sounds very familiar right now.)
Here's hoping that the US Government is going to deny your efforts, or that the courts strike them down if the patent office is naive enough to let them pass. Pity I'm an atheist. Or I'd wish you to hell as well.
Cheers,
[legal name]
They're auctioning off the genetic material of "beautiful people". Ron Harris has arranged for an auction of eggs from eight models. You can read more about it from here:
http://abcnews.go. com/sections/us/DailyNews/modelseggs991023.html
Or, you can go straight to the website here: http://ronsangels.com
Next up from the site, a sperm auction.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
You're confusing patent law and copyright law.
What surprises me most about all this is they are filing for a patent on nothing more than a map. A real world analogy would be the map of a town or a schematic drawing of a tree. Okay, you can get a copyright on a map, saying 'I did the survey, you can copy it but you'll have to pay'. But you might just as well go out there and do a survey of your own.
As genome sequencing becomes faster and faster, there will probably be more maps real soon now. The wellcome trust say so themselves. All this patenting business will be moot then. If you can show that you obtained the map on your own, which should be quite easy, I can't imagine how patent can hold up in court.
In the mean time, the cheapest way to get a specific sequence may be buying a copy of the map from someone. So what? If it was corporatly funded research this has been the norm for quite a while.
If it was publicly funded research - it should be public.
Understandably this company wants to prevent that other people have a free ride on their years of effort to create this database.
Patents are no good for protecting the DNA database however. What they could do is patent the method used to collect the data, not the data itself.
The data collection could be protected with copyright. This would enable others to quote it (like you quote a phone book or a book of laws) but would make it illegal for somebody to just copy the entire database.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong about this, if so please point that out.
Jilles
In the 70's Pebble Beach Golf Course copyrighted a lone cypress tree that was frequently associated with their image. Their copyright statement to this day claims copyright on "The Lone Cypress Tree."
They apparently have a sign that says you may take pictures of the tree for personal use, but not for commerical reproduction. Go figure.
But the patented genes are artificial, or in some way artificially moved into another organism.
:)
A patent on a gene in general would seem to have a few billion problems with "prior art."
Give me a break. A patent over a specific gene doesn't mean a company literally owns that gene in your body, and sexual reproduction wouldn't violate said patent.
As somebody else phrased it in a question, "Or are they simply saying that if they go to the trouble of describing the genome in a useful way, and packaging it up, that people will have to pay to get that package."
That is precisely what they are doing -- just like although you can't patent gravity you can patent useful descriptions of gravity. The patent will give 17 year exclusivity for those companies to develop products that incorporate said genes such as treatments for genetic diseases.
I now the rest of you think such cures are just going to fall from the sky, but in the real world these things cost tons of money and nobody's going to invest that with out a property right of exclusivity so they can recoup costs and make a profit.
"Doc, I'm having a hard time breathing"
"Thats what you get for buying lungs at Futureshop"
crazy dynamite monkey
Perhaps more interestingly - is it legal to patent something that you know someone else is working on, and when you know they were working on it before you? Surely the human genome project can be classed as "prior art" - they may not have FINISHED first, but they were working on the techniques and answers first. If you have 90% of a design finished and show it to me, and I bash out the last 10% and claim its all my own work, can I (legally) patent it? What if the original is public domain?
Only a couple percent of human/animal proteins are known. DNA sequencing will reveal the composition of the other 90+%. It will take some time however to figure out what they do. There are probably several "wonder drugs" in there. And they would be especially easy to manufacture knowing their eaxct composition and haveing DNA technology to do so.
Please contact the Wellcome Trust to indicate your support of them.
I'd love to (as would, I suspect, a pretty large number of the other posters here) but I've been scanning through their site for a little while now and they don't seem to be asking for people to contact them offering support, or even revealing an address where we could. Does anyone know the address where we can contact them, or is this just an (understandably) enthusiastic writer assuming they want support without checking?
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
DNA IS DATA! Data is NOT patentable, any more than a christmas carol. You can COPYRIGHT data, but you cannot, and should never be able to, patent it.
;-p
Can data live? Besides, is reading DNA the same as understanding DNA? I suspect that when the last chapter of the Great Book of Human Genome is finished reading it would compare to reading encrypted Chinese, without the the key or the Dictionary of course.
Come to think of it... considering the fact that DNA was here first and created US, DNA Inc. would make a fair chance patenting humans. Heck, why not all species... ?
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars
Considering that each human has different DNA, what exactly are they trying to patent? I thought that a slight change in a patent could lead to a new patent, so if they patent *their* human I can patent *me* and it's a slight variation. or , on the other hand, they are patenting the braod concept of human DNA, and how many existing patents on bits are they duplicating/infringing? And is it a full patent, global, and the cost would be fall all that if true???
As far as I recall the patent on DNA sequences is owned by the evolution process! Get what I mean?
What the hell comes next? Someone patenting 'air' and then leasing it to us for our consumption?
This is getting totally out of hand! I can understand why certain organisations feel the need to post patent applications as a result of the millions of dollars invested in research. They are, after all, businesses and they want a return on their money. But at what cost?
If this trend continues and, for example, a cure for cancer is discovered. Am I going to have to license the right to have the DNA sequence that caused the cancer in the first place before it could be treated?!?
As you can probably guess, I am not a medical boffin, I am man on the street. I do, however, understand the implications of this. It would be as bad as someone patenting the finger print!
Their webmaster account is dead. I would
recommend to contact the listed contacts
from the whois database instead:
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Peterson, Marshall (MP11039) petersmr@CELERA.COM
(240) 453-3031 (FAX) (240) 453-4375
Billing Contact:
Thompson, Robert (RT6484) thompsrc@CELERA.COM
Chairman Gates has just summoned the non-independent journalists for an unscheduled, direct2brain live Genecast to issue a statement clarifying His motives for launching a competing patent application on sexual reproduction. Says the Chairman: "The runours regarding the details of our patent application have been absolutely ludicrous. We are not going to impose a process on people that is long and painful, no siree. Our patented method will be nothing like that, like our past product lines. I have personally refined a new method of reproduction over the years that is as brief as possible, and there is no pain whatsoever involved. In fact, one doesn't feel _anything_ at all during the process.
Also, there has been rumours claiming that our surprise patent application had something to do with My being unable to stop rocking whenever I rest on my posterior and that motion would deplenish Microsoft's huge financial reserves, were we to pay royalties on that. I DO NOT ROCK! GOT THAT YOU MORONS!" (trying to cough off the falsetto and regain composure...) (Ballmer taking over the transmission...) "Guys, as usual, you will leave the ending out of your "reports". And sorry about the delays... the checks are in the mail, really, we had some minor problems with our... well, that's none of your business anyway... And those of you with implants of version 0.46 or later, please visit our physician for an update due to some new, eh, features we've discovered. Thank you"
It's too important to be trusted to a commercial entity. We could be missing out on a cure for cancer or AIDS, bacause the company in question wasn't researching that area, and no-one else would touch the patented bits because it's easier to work on the other bits.
Patenting genes was a nasty kludge to allow companied to recoup R&D costs from times when that much computing power was expensive. It's becoming affordable now, and in a couple of years, no-one will even think about it. I'd rather wait a couple of years for the Human Genome Project to sort out the whole lot than have a company do it all in 4 months but prevent people working on it for the next 20 years.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
I fully agree that they should have the right to protect their VERY expensive research (Chemicals and equipment necessary to to gene sequencing is very expensive, afiak).
I also agree in principle that Patents do, in a way, prevent companies from keeping things a secret.
Rather than keep their discoveries under lock-and-key, they have to disclose them completely. The Information becomes freely available, and in the case of pure information like this, it means that ALL Their research would be publicly, freely available.
These 'effects' of having a patent on genes (or whatever) that they desicover, I can also agree with. It would simply prevent other companies from taking their millions of dollars in research and providing 'products' (I have no idea what they would be), based on their research, without paying them the royalties they probably deserve.
It doesn't mean nobody can publish documents containing these descriptions (that would be covered under copyright, if anything).
The problem, however, is what about the Human Genome Project? Does this mean that when they find these particular 'patented' genes, they can't reveal them? No.. they can.. I guess it simply means that they can't USE them in anything. (as in, biological products)
What about a SETI@Home style distributed sequence search? I'd download the client if the results were dedicated to putting all discovered sequences into the public domain...
Pot... kettle... black.
Something can be patented and freely available. Actually patenting something does make it freely available, just not necessarily freely usable. A patent disclosure has to include all the details necessary for a person competent in the field to reproduce the work. You could still patent something and make it freely useable however, though the likelyhood that Dr Venter is doing this is vanishingly small.
But what the heck is he actually trying to patent? The Human Genome? That's just information. It's not a process, it's not a technique, it's not a thing as such. That's like me trying to patent a dictionary. Not the actual book, but the information contained in there.
It just doesn't make much sense. He can't be trying to patent the actual information, since he's going to sell it, type of thing.. My guess it that the patents are techniques for gaining the information that they invented and used.. sort of the bruce force methods they discuss in the article..
It'll never mean anything anyway. The genome would leak onto the internet faster than anything. The problem with selling something like that is that you can't prove that someone used your data when the copy gets leaked.
The story is crap, it doesn't make sense, I can't grasp it... argh! I hate badly written stories that don't make any sense!
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
My patent on quarks and combinations of quarks to form such particles as electrons, protons, and neutrons already supercedes this. Naturally, as a strong supporter of Open Source, I've put it all in the public domain. :)
I've got a better idea. Let's just give them the money for their R&D. This way, we avoid 17 years of people dying needlessly from diseases that could be cured with an open genome map. I dare you to go into a cancer or AIDS ward and tell them how these companies have a "right" to recoup their R&D that trumps their "right" to live.
The part that bugs me the most is that they don't even know what the genes do. All they've done is say "Hey! We found some genes that haven't been discovered yet. Let's patent them." I don't know how something can be called a non-trivial extension if it will show up in the public databases within 6 months to a year. Because that's what it comes down to, they got several gene sequences first, and they want to make a fast buck (make that a fast $100,000,000). Meanwhile, everyone else and their brother releases the sequences they discover to the public, usually by submitting to NCBI (in the US).
Of course the other aspect that _really_ drives me nuts is that the US Patent Office will probably grant this. They really are becoming more and more useless every day.
Oh, and before I forget. Craig Venter sucks!
[reply to my own post in light of other replies]
Yes, I shifted from copyright to patent without mentioning it, and yes you are right to point out the differences.
After re-reading the BBC write up it does appear that they are trying to patent the actual data of the gene sequence, which is insane.
The only argument in defence of this that I can think of is to say that the human genome is a mechanism for describing the human, and they are patenting this mechanism - the data is simply "Human-ness". A pretty weak argument, rather like the Ordinance Survey try to patent the height datum for the UK because its a mechanism they invented to describe the data of "The UK".
As for related issues of patenting Genes that you have constructed yourself, I think that's less controversial - it may be a dubious claim, but it's not heinous in the same way patenting the Human Genome would be.
-----
A structure comprising of two up quarks, together with one down quark, bound together by the strong nuclear force, for the express purpose of making atoms.
:-)
That should cause a few headaches
In US patent law, scientific principals (gravity) are explicitly not patentable nor are equations which describe nature (e=mc^2).
Glad I had my son a few years ago.....I would hated to pay a subscription fee to help create new genetic material. I pay the Friend of the Court too much as it is!
Now if we could get them to come and repossess some of dad's mid-section genes and a few of those pesky baldin genes, I might just support them for a few minutes.
Does this mean that if I discover a new species and I get a patent for it that zoos pay me royalties for the opportunuty to display said species? Get real! These people are trying to take credit for mother nature and evolution? I must say that the research is amazing, but lets leave it available to everyone. We'll get much better results that way and I believe that the morality issues will be policed more thoroughly.
Genes should NEVER be patented. Playing with genes is not an activity suitable for the greedy -- and other people have no need for such patents.
A patent on a gene in general would seem to have a few billion problems with "prior art."
I wish that were the case...
What they're doing (as I understand - I'm not a biologist) is scanning the genes that are discovered for potential medical applications, then patenting the use of that gene for the specific medical application they believe it relevant to. What makes it even worse is that, as well as scanning the genes they sequence, they're scanning the genes that the academics are sequencing, and patenting their use, too.
I really hope that this gets struck down, but they seem to be able to do this right now...
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
just like although you can't patent gravity you can patent useful descriptions of gravity.
Can you though? Assume that Newton discovered gravity and his laws of motion today. What could he have patented?
1. Gravity itself - (hopefully) obviously not. As others have mentioned, there's always been gravity, etc, etc.
2. The descriptions (Gravity is...) - Do the same arguements apply to this as above?
3. His laws of motion. (Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, etc) - Can something like this be patented? Its a "useful description", which is (was) non obvious, but how could you infringe against this? Would someone who made, say, shock absorbers for cars be infringing this patent?
4. The mathematical equations - Since (IIRC) algorithms can be patented, could this be patented? ("A method for determining the force due to gravity between two objects"). Would this mean that anyone who uses this equation have to licence it in the same way RSA needs to be licenced?
5. Newton's cradle - this is obviously a physical thing, which probably could be patented. It can be used to "describe" gravity/forces in an easy-to-understand manner, so could this be patented?
What can be patented about an idea such as this?
Make back their R&D??
The Human Genome Project will achieve the same goal. They have NO right to recover their costs -- and if they don't like that, they should question their motives in launching a competitor project.
If they WERE granted patents, they should not last beyond the HGP discovering the same thing.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
yeah...why doesn't the Church try to get the patent on all genetic material on earth... after all, they control the estate of it's developer...
That, I say, That there is a joke, Son
--Foghorn Leghorn
I post links to stuff here
I'm going to patent reproduction.
So everyone that want to have sex, from now on, will have to pay me for it.
Wow, I guess that means I will be the pimp-king. =)
"Last words are for fools who haven't said enough." - Karl Marx
What could become A Big Mess (TM) is what a gene patent actually means. It is not difficult to devise a DNA sequence that is different from the wild type that generates the exact same protein, or a slight variant with the same biological function. A bit farther in the future we will have more ways of generating proteins through protein engineering.
But wait, there's more. You can mass-produce the product of a gene without knowing or caring about its sequence or structure. Does the gene patent cover the product of a gene? I realize our patent system in the US is horribly broken but it is my understanding that patents are for specific processes, not for any process that serves a specific goal.
This issue reminds me of the need we have for formalizing defensive patents. A lot of companies issue patents simply to prevent others from doing so, and plan not to profit from them. Celera claims to be doing this, essentially. If there was only a way to guarantee that this were true, and prevent future management from reneging on the promise... then our lives might become a lot easier!
In any case, abusers of this system will eventually be frustrated with the progress of technology, as they are in other areas.
This is from a pull-together of summaries by Science Week on gene patenting stories. It is no longer on their site, but is cached on google at
htt p://www.google.com/search?q=cache:9485790&dq=cache :scienceweek.com/arch2.htm
The pull-together also includes several other summaries of on-topic stories.
The original article was in Science, 1 May 98 280:689, by John J. Doll (US Government), Director of Biotechnology Examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office
ON THE ADVANTAGES OF DNA PATENTING
In the international community of molecular biologists, a debate has been underway for some time concerning the patenting of DNA. Now John J. Doll (US Government), Director of Biotechnology Examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office presents the following points concerning this issue:
QY: John J. Doll, Technology Center 1600, USPTO, Washington, DC 20231 US.
(Science 1 May 98 280:689) (Science-Week 22 May 98)
For a contrary view, this position paper from the American Society of Human Genetics, on the earlier issue of expressed sequence tags is worth reading:
http://www.faseb.org/genetics/ ashg/policy/pol-08.htm
I don't understand how you can patent decoding something? Sure, the decoded data may be very valuable but it isn't your invention. It may be appropriate to patent the tools and techniques involved in the decoding process, but I don't understand how decoded data can be patented.
Suppose I decode the file format for Microsoft Office 2000? Can I then patent it? I'd love to have Microsoft have to pay me for reverse engineering their work but it doesn't seem realistic.
In the future I can see patenting DNA as a creation: specialized DNA which is the result of some large and expensive research and design process but even then as only a delta to some established DNA. You'd get a patent on the incremental improvement, not on the whole DNA structure.
The patent officers should ask themselves whether it would be appropriate to patent the image of man which would be roughly analogous to patenting its DNA.
Does this mean I'll have to pay royalties if my kids happen to have patented genes?
Am I misunderstanding that they're trying to patent the patterns within human DNA? Is that really what they're trying to do? Lay claim to gene sequences? Nucleotides?
If that's the case, when will someone pattent the unique hydrogen-oxygen arrangement of water molecules? That being the universal solvent should yield royalties up the wazoo!
Or maybe patent the unique structure of ozone - thereby collecting a huge fee from corporations that release ozone-destroying chemicals, for destroying private property.
Where is the common sense in the legal/patent system? Once a system becomes so full of loop-holes that it begins to resemble Swiss Cheese(TM) it should be Innovated(TM).
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Okay, I was kidding a few days ago when I first posted this, but now I'm thinking I just might actually file this one!
Begin repost:
Abstract: the anterior part of the central nervous system enclosed in the cranium of vertebrates, consisting of a mass of nerve tissue organized for the perception of sensory impulses, the regulation of motor impulses, and the production of memory, learning, and consciousness
AKA: A Brain
Inventor: Nicodemas
Assignee: Slashdot
Application number: 929001
Filed: October 22, 1999
End Repost
"Inspire me! Tell me it cannot be done!"
...take on a very scary new meaning in this kind of scenerio. If a company loses a lawsuit over some life forms they created, do all those lives have to be destroyed?
The next technological battlefront: open source vs. proprietary life?
Ideology is for ideots.
We live in a world where people sell land, water, animals.. even people. is there really a fundamental difference between claiming ownership of these naturally occurring things and claiming ownership of their building blocks?
Is it possible these efforts to patent Homo Sapiens's source code, along with "patent parasitism" from companies that don't make anything, overbroad software patents, and patenting ideas rather than products will actually hasten the death of the patent system?
All the above just demonstrate, to more and more people, that offline laws aren't right for the Net. In the sense that efforts like Celera's convince more people that it's wrong, it may lead to a complete overhaul of world legal systems sooner rather than later. And that would be a Good Thing.
Chris
- Read fiction at www.espressostories.com
I think the Pope should file for a patent on behalf of god. Personally, I think god is an open source activist.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
Part of living in a Capitalist society is ownership. A company spending millions of dollars on research has every right to protect its intellectual property by any means neccessary. The alternative to patent is trade secret information hidden from EVERYONE. At least this way a company can recoup some of its expenses by making the data available to others (at a fee, of course).
I understand that straining at gnats and passing camels through needles are required courses in law school. But come on now. There has to be some limit. Can you see this corporation extorting a fee from each memeber of the human race for using their patents in the application of living?
Someone, Somewhere, there must be a judge with brains out there. I just cannot believe that we would allow this to happen to us.
NT is based on the premise that anyone who can manipulate a mouse can administer a system. Huh?!?
I hereby proclaim my intent to violate any patent that includes or mentions any genetic
material contained in my body, forever, no matter what statist judges, clueless lawyers,
or the "we'll grant any" patent office says. I don't know HOW I'll do it, but if it's possible
I'll do it. (I assume they've granted patents on my genetic material in my body to either
the government or a corporation, and I don't care which it is.)
I further call for massive civil disobedience on the part of others, as many as possible.
If this is not resisted, it will only spread. Like others, I've noticed the patent office has
become increasingly-promiscuous in granting questionable patents of late. I'm not sure
I can explain why completely, but part of it has to do with trying to use the PTO as a
revenue source, a policy which began in the Reagan administration, and continues in
this (even-more-Nixonian) Lippo administration.
JMR
(Speaking for myself only, don't try being me at home.)
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Each cell division is another count of piracy against the parents? How many cells in the human body again? You might also be sued for producing a "derivative work" of the patented gene(s) too.
restart, reboot... ha,ha,ha...
Now in 1992 the NIH (National Institutes of Health) tried to patent several gene fragments and the PTO sent a rejection notice back to them immediately.
In 1997, the PTO said that it would allow expressed sequence tags (ESTs) to be patented. Now, ESTs are DNA sequences made up to a few hundred base pairs in length that can be used to identify the expression of specific genes.
And today Celera wants to patent 6000 human genes.
There's one single name behind all this: Dr. Craig Venter. He worked at NIH prior to taking up commercial sequencing. Do I see a pattern here?
If existing but hard to reproduce in human-readable form information can be patented (DNA is easy to repreduce in non-human-readable form already, so all they did is converting existing information in human-readable form), it can be applied to more ridiculous things -- say, someone can patent his measurements of stars positions and then claim that everyone who is going to use them for navigation (on Earth or in space) can't use them anymore.
Or, better, patent foreign or disappeared languages.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Is not that DNA could be patented, I think that
it's ridiculous notion. I just can't wait for
the argument that arises when the Religious Zealots, creationists, and the Kansas School Board start to protest based on the "Lord having the patent". Let's hope that they're money and rightousness don't halt the projects all together.
Of course, anyone using Netcraft's web query system is going to find out what type of web server is running at www.celera.com, and will see what are the natural leanings of the company... For a company, DOING things which are unpopular with the net community (to the point of appearing on Slashdot) AND RUNNING front systems with a poor security record is a recipe for problems...
No, it is not a big jump that way, patenting human genes have been going on for quite some time now, and the genes have also often been naturally occuring. OK, in agricultural cases they move a gene from one organism to another, but it is usually a naturally occuring gene anyway (designed proteins have a long way before they are useful).
Here is an example. An Italian researcher found that people in a small village had very low frequences of chardiovascular diseases. He found that the gene for a protein had a mutation and patented this. Today that patent is held by Esperion, and they are working on makeing a drug out of this discovery.
The big change here is that Celera can patent 6000 genes. The reason they can (try) to do that is because they want to patent predicted function. There is no way they can have worked out 6000 drug targets without prediction. And therein also lays one of the problems the Wellcome trust have with these patents.
Lars
--
Reality or nothing.
Put a drop of your own blood on a postcard, let it dry, write "prior work" and your date of birth (or conception, if that's the sort of question you can ask your parents) underneath it, and mail it to them.
--
This is not my sandwich.
I've gone and checked out their site, and they don't mention patenting the genome sequences, but if you want to contact them, their contact page is at:
.htm back when DOS/Windows could not handle more than 3-character extensions reliably, but this is just silliness! Sigh.
http://www.celera.com/Compan yInformation/Contacts.shtm
And, on a technical note: ".shtm"?! What the hell is that?! People started using
Isnt the item that is being enhanced partially owned by the person who owns the patent? So really they could come back and say that UR kids are not ALL urs!! Not only that, but if u had modifications made and were not able to pay for them (after the child was born) then they could REPO ur kids..
Are they trying to say something like 'we will patent gene Z which has base pairs blah blah; you can not do research involving this gene without our permission'. IF so, this is crazy. A few weeks ago they had a 'Millenium Nigh' at the White House where they had two speakers - the topic of information technology and genomics or something. Basically, one guy talked about the internet ( I can't remember his name, but he was very intelligent and influential in the creation of the internet [note: not Al Gore :o)]) and the other about Genomics. Basically, the guy on Genomics took this stand: if company A researches gene Z and discovers a cure for cancer, then they should be allowed to patents said cure [although, I would hope they would still share this information - in a perfect world I guess]. But patenting genes just because you shelled out computing power to discover them is absurd [my comment, not his]. DNA is the source code of life. It would be like trying to patent the English language. You can't. You can, however, copyright your own works which you have written in the English language. If I write a book on Widget X, you can not plagarize me. But you don't need my permission to write a book, whether it is on Widget X or Birds. [ok, kinda lame analogy] It is like an encylcopedia - the knowledge is free, how it is organized is not, I guess. Well, that is not the best example, but you get the idea - it is the presentation, not the material, that is important here. I just hope the governments step in and take a stand against this.
Something can be patented and freely available. Actually patenting something does make it freely available, just not necessarily freely usable. A patent disclosure has to include all the details necessary for a person competent in the field to reproduce the work. You could still patent something and make it freely useable however, though the likelyhood that Dr Venter is doing this is vanishingly small.
crazy dynamite monkey
I understand the intenetions of patent laws, but when it comes to scientific research should patent laws even be allowed? Think about how we are hurting our own techonological development by placing patent laws on techonology! I would think slashdot reader would understand why open source works and and closed minded ideas dont.
And to think I've just been giving mine away all these years....
*wheew* I'm glad if they get the patent, because then no geek will ever have to feel bad about being a single - making children would be breaching Celera Genomics copyright of the human genes.
This distinction was built into early legal precedent. Merely discovering a mechanism in nature does not entitle one to a patent of invention on that mechanism. Departure from that precedent leaves us in a land of selective enforcement and bogus arguments against patentability such as "it must be public domain for the common good".
Note this is distinct from the other major abuse of patent law these days, exhibited primarily by software patents, which is patenting techniques that are obvious to those skilled in the art.
Seastead this.
Makes me want to rent Bladerunner. What a cool world that would be. Don't remember the characters name, the one who said he "makes friends". There are probably kids alive today that will live to do this kind of thing.
Actually, it's a registered trademark. I took a photo of the sign when I was there (USENIX conference in Monterey), and the exact text is:
So, if we get Celera to sequence the Lone Cypress, who wins? :-)
Y'know, a patent is only for 17 years. I'm guessing we'll be using the data for some time after that. I'm no fan of the patent office, but why not let those guys make back their R&D?
In this great example, we see perfectly well that nothing good is achieved other a non-patentable world: the research is taking place through the Human Genome Project ANYWAY, and those "fine" people are just trying to steal a piece of the cake.
Just as open source software shows that IP isn't THAT necessary to innovation and development.
is it legal to patent something that you use brute force to reverse engineer?
Unless, of course, they'd like to make the claim that genes didn't exist until they created them.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Despite assurances earlier this year to the US Congress that Celera's discoveries would be freely available, Dr Venter is now seeking to patent more than 6,000 pieces of genetic information.
Ummm.. Isn't that technically purjury under US Law? I recall something like this.. not sure where I read that from, but the gist of it was you can't lie to congress for any reason, or something to that effect..
This only applies if he's a US citizen I suppose..
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
OK ite been a while since I was in bio so somebody help out here. I'm gonna claim the combinations of the four basic types of proteins. So how does it go TD, TA, TG, DA, DG, AG should cover them all (even the impossible ones). Now they are infringing on my patent.
silly question but if I reproduce (as frightening as that is) would I violate their patent?
-cpd
in a minute silence to these idiots.. If they honestly think they can get away with this the must have been dropped on the head when they were born... often
I'm a firm beliver in peace and humanity above all.. but if those pricks get a patent on the human DNA structure I'll personally march over their laboratories singing "My Way" while torching their cats and hats.... I mean.. if those idiots really think they can get away with this... they have another thing coming
---
---
Killroy Woz Here
Patenting a piece DNA, take for example the glowing Christmas tree, that's new and Should be patented.
However patenting something that already exists is very tricky. For instance, patenting blue eyes would be impossible as I can prove the existance of them for at least the last 30 years, hence voiding the Patent
On the other hand patenting red glowing eyes...?
But, who is to decide on what can, or cannot be patented, certainly not the morons who check the software patents (Give me a break, patenting 1-Click?)
I wonder if they are able to get this done and then some cops figure out the reason the kid up the street went on a rampage with a sick amount of firepower was because he had a bad gene that they owned...would they be liable. Maybe not but you know they would be sued....everybody sues. Or sue the parents, after all they put the genes together.
Private industry stepped up to the plate and said that they will finish the task in less time than their overfunded government counterparts. Does anyone here really believe that academia alone would have finished the job? (I worked on a genome project in academia and it was a pure cluster-fudge.) Do you really think Congress would have kept the project funded through to the finish? Do you think they should, i.e., do you think it's a good idea to divert limited research funds away from a myriad of small projects to feed this beast?
Private industry developed the technologies to make large scale sequencing possible. And I'll bet they'll make good on their promise to deliver the goods on time.
Patent law provided the incentives for these innovations. It is good and proper that private industry receive a time-limited protection on them in return. (Would you prefer private industry to keep the genome information as a trade secret?)
You can't shoehorn libre software into every model of innovation.
Wouldn't somebody then come along and patent the abiliy to float too. Where would that leave the rest of us I wonder?
And it may be very soon that the progress of technology frustrates Celera. Mike Dexter of the Wellcome trust is quoted at the end of the BBC article as "more than a third of the human genome is already available on the Internet, with up to 90% of it due to be published by March next year." Let's hope so!
Maybe we should get some hackers to get their info on Genes and distribute it to the entire population through the Internet that way everyone is equal again
This is analogous to patenting words.. you can't do it.
The genetic structure is SOURCE CODE for gods sake! Hell, it's better than source code. It's like a zipped binary.
Essentially, scientist are "reverse engineering" DNA. If we were smart, we'd have DNA put into the public domain. The catch-22 is that companies SAY they wouldn't spend as much on DNA research if they couldn't get a patent. That's bullshit. They can still patent their medicines and therapies. They just shouldn't be able to patent sequence. It could eventually get very stiffling if we start handing out the Y gene, ya know.
Imagine, Merck owns femininity.. who do they think they fsking are, Aphrodite? What is medical companies learned from software companies, and started licensing gene therapies? AHHHH
Whatever..
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Useta be that in pure research, scientists shared all their information, for the good of the discipline. That's what the journals were for - information dissemination. Now, big business is interested, and money is king, and most research is private and trademarked company secret. Everything under the sun is patented, putting a 17 (7? don't remember) year lag in anything that can build on it. Research is no longer distributed, and the journals are just lists of scientists who will get a big bonus check this year. *heavy sigh*
Reread this paragraph, substituting "sysadmins" for "scientists", "internet/newsgroups/mailing lists" for "journals", and "source code" for "research".
--
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
I really wish you guys would post the full story up, as it seems the UK and US governments won't even allow it! Doesn't that negate the entire thread about this topic?
BBC news
Unfortunately for Venter et al., I have quite a few DNA polymerases (and associated proteins) working for me that not only recognize many DNA structures, but can duplicate them, as well. Additional 100% all-natural components can translate these sequences into RNA, and backends are available to translate RNA into protein. Applications already being pursued include protein synthesis and in vivo genetic recombination. So there. ;)
-W-
Is it all journey, or is there landfall?
--Ellison & van Vogt, 'The Human Operators'
This is why pharmaceutical companies prefer to develop new synthetic drugs to do things rather than research what various plant and tree extracts can cure. Man made drugs can be patented ($$$profit$$$) while NO ONE CAN PATENT TREE SAP. I see no reason why human genes should be treated any differently than any other part of nature. They are part of nature. Now if we're talking about creating new and never before seen genes and patanting those, that's another story. However, we are not.
This guy really, really, really pisses me off. If the article is correct, he really is trying to patent the actual "source code" of human DNA. Patenting naturally occuring information should be illegal, (if it isn't already). I beleive it is, but don't think that will stop the patent office from giving it to him unless we fight against it.
Look at the patents they've been giving out recently, the amazon 1 click patent is absurd. I also read an article a few months back (can't remember the source, I'll post it if I find it) about an American medical company that was patenting herbal remedies discovered by indigenous tribes in South America. Just as absurd as the amazon patent, this one gives the medical company the rights to these remedies in America even though someone else discovered them.
It is obvious that the patent office needs an overhaul, but I see a bigger issue here. Our level of technology is becoming increasingly incompatible with our eceonomic system, political system, and cultural values. I'm referring here to the potential harm we can do to ourselves.
We're only opening the door right now to world of biotechnology (or is it pandora's box), but being able to "design" your children to DNA "fixes" for certain diseases, is in the near future, definetly the next century.
So what features do we see in our political and economic system? Greed, and a lack of accountability. Cultural values? Materialism, sefishness, worship of physical attributes (like beauty, etc). I'm not saying that the world is totally focused on these things, but lets face it, it's not that far from it.
So how have these functions of our society affected our world when you look at the technology we have? I could name off dozens, but I'll list a few examples. Take Agricultural technology. Somewhere during this century, we basically had the ability to feed everyone in the world enough food to keep them healthy, but of course this doesn't happen. Some farmers' fields aren't planted to keep the prices up (gov't subsidies....you get paid to not plant your fields, now thats efficiency for you). Or you can't send food to countries that are official enemies of the united states. In Russia, which now has a somewhat capitalist economic system, food is widely available, but of course the problem now is that no one has enough money to buy it, except the rich. I can apply similar arguments to housing, clothing, and medicine.
The book 1984 has a few pages on this same idea, that we have the technology to end all the worlds problems right now, yet we haven't achieved it for some reason. This is in a book that the main character Winston reads, which he beleives was written by a "leader of the underground" movement (can't remember his name, shame on me). Anyway, if you haven't read 1984, you should. It's a good remedy for political apathy.
How many technologies are used to simply harm humanity (guns)? Or have had side affects that weren't known because they weren't tested enough, over covered up when they were learned (cigarettes)? Or technologies that were tested on the general population, by an unaccountable entity (nuclear radiation)?
So when we have the ability in the near future to manipulate the fabric of life, what are we going to do with it? Fix humanity's problems, or exasperate them? If we follow the road we're on now, I think you know the answer. Playing with the fabric of life is simply too powerful and important to view it simply as a source of money. If you think the gap between the rich and poor is bad enough now, it can get a whole lot worse. We could have a whole elite class of people who are superior physically and mentally to the underclass who can't afford genetic treatments and modificaltions. Basically we could have a slave class and an elite class, with some absurd ratio of like 200:1. On top of that, the greed factor can play another role: unproven treatments being sold to the public. The reprecussions of this could be monsterous, from infertility, horribly mutated people, to death. This probably sounds like every sci-fi book you've ever read, but lets face it, is it really that improbable?
Speak out against this potential patent. The scenerio I spoke of above needs to be stopped before it gets started. Don't let individuals control the fate of humanity.
... on genetic sequences. It's a big fight. BP Chapman Bioinformatician
Oh I hope this keeps up. All I have to do is get the genomes of certain married couples and then I can own their children! Who do I want to own first? Jennifer Aniston or Selma Hayek. Choices, choices...
or would a few billion individual suits be more damaging. If they patent a single genome that is contained in your own DNA then you could be part of a class action suit against them based on prior art (or something).
Toward that end, I hereby claim the entire gene sequence of my own DNA, in part or in whole, as my own by prior claim. Further, acting on behalf of my children, I place similar claims for them. I'll have to ask my wife and see if she want's to join in on a class action or try for a seperate settlement.
I figure if nothing else, we can bankrupt the bastiches with lawyer fees. Think about it, simultaneaus legal actions against them in several thousand jurisdictions. I bet they wouldn't last a week.
And of course, some of the more Totalitarian governments might just decide to do a seizure of assets instead.
Time's fun when you're having flies. - Kermit the Frog
Sad thing is that someone's already squatting the domain.
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
First off, HUGO, the Human Genome Project, will in any event publish this particular information in due course.
A discovery can reasobaly considered IP in some situations, and so can a description. For instance, the Ordinance Survey have the rights to their particular description of the topology of Britain. All they've done is draw something that everyone has access to, but they've drawn it in a particular way. The OS can sue me if I use their maps in a book without permission. They can't sue me if I use their maps to work out how tall a mountain is, and then put that information in my book. Nor can they sue me if I draw my own maps from my own observations.
What is Celera proposing? That no-one may every make use of the human genome data without their permission? Or are they simply saying that if they go to the trouble of describing the genome in a useful way, and packaging it up, that people will have to pay to get that package. If the latter, I see no problem.
If they are trying to patent the Genome itself, then its farcical. If they are trying to patent their tools for working it out, or their method of displaying it, or their tools for making it searchable, that's fine.
A particular description of something is patentable, the thing described isn't necessarily.
Now there are grey areas. Could the first person (it may have been the OS) to come of with the idea of contour lines have declared them IP? Well, that's a grey area, and that's the controversial area, but it's unclear to what extent Celera are trying to do something like that.
-----
If it's legal to patent discoveries of how things in nature work, just think of the opportunities that have been missed!
Newton could've patented gravity... (Did you licence the gravity you are using to keep your feet on the ground? No? Then I demand that you start floating right now!)
Come on, this is a sham! How can you patent something you didn't create? I understand someone saying "We found it, we own it!" But DNA is owned by all of us by right of nature, not some big corporation with delusions of becoming the Microsoft of human genetics.
If they own the rights for DNA structures then they would own part of all of us and every other creature living under Gods creation (no offense intended to the non or anti-Christian). And the last I checked slavery was illegal.
Sorry, i do Physics, not Biology,
...), forces (electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravitation), relativistic spacetime and Quantum mechanics.
I'd like to patent particles (electrons, quarks, photons
Where do i have to go with this?
I'd prefer to see Evolution sue Celera Genomics.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Trade secrets are moraly preferable, since, unlike patents, they don't limit the freedom for other people to use information they have found for themselves.
In this case they are also practically preferable, since the human genome project will make the information available to everybody.