I don't think you can get a patent on a naturally occurring thing. Genes are naturally occurring, so you can't "own" a particular gene sequence.
I think the patents in this area are for methods of isolating/modifying/etc. the genes that are already there. If I come up with an innovative way to identify or isolate or modify a particular gene, then I can patent my method. I can patent the new gene created by my innovative method. But I can't find a gene then say, "I found it, I want to patent it and own every occurrence of this gene in nature." That is not possible with our current patent laws.
I think this system is ok for now. Without allowing people to obtain patents on the results of bio-research, would you spend millions (billions?) of dollars doing the research? (Answer: Note, not if you are smart.)
Neither would the companies currently doing this research. We need to provide some incentive to them, let them recoup their investment costs and even allow profit (gasp!). Patent law is the best friend of innovation and dissemination of scientific information. It provides motive to create. It allows monumental investment in something that, once disclosed, can be used by anyone (since it is only an idea).
___
"no. most ideas are patent protected AND kept a trade secret. look at all the patents out there -- how many actually give the necessary info to duplicate the invention ? not many. and this is a BAD THING."
___
I must point out that your above post is completely incorrect. One of the requirements of obtaining a patent is to disclose the invention to the public. Patents are published, you can go to uspto.gov and find them.
To get a patent, the applicant must disclose enough information so that a person of ordinary skill in that particular "art" can build the invention. So if you invent and try to patent a device that uses knowledge of semiconductor processing, those who understand the current science and technology of semiconductor processing must be able to read your patent and be able to build your invention. This is called "enablement," and is a requirement of the patent law statute (35 USC, sec. 112, I think).
If you don't disclose enough to allow someone else to build your invention, you cannot legally obtain a patent for it.
This is part of the quid pro quo of patent law. The inventor gives something to society by creating something that did not previously exist.
In return, the people (via the government) give the inventor property rights to the invention (for a limited time--17 years I think). This is to provide profit incentive for the inventor to create inventions, and recoup investment cost. With property rights, an inventor (more often a corporate assignee who paid the inventor to invent) can exclude others from making, using, or selling the patented idea.
The point of all this is that patents most definitely are NOT secret. Part of that quid pro quo is that the inventor must tell everyone, up front, exactly how to build the thing and make it work. In fact, it is a legal requirement that an inventor disclose the "best mode" of practicing the invention.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you can get a patent on a naturally occurring thing. Genes are naturally occurring, so you can't "own" a particular gene sequence. I think the patents in this area are for methods of isolating/modifying/etc. the genes that are already there. If I come up with an innovative way to identify or isolate or modify a particular gene, then I can patent my method. I can patent the new gene created by my innovative method. But I can't find a gene then say, "I found it, I want to patent it and own every occurrence of this gene in nature." That is not possible with our current patent laws. I think this system is ok for now. Without allowing people to obtain patents on the results of bio-research, would you spend millions (billions?) of dollars doing the research? (Answer: Note, not if you are smart.) Neither would the companies currently doing this research. We need to provide some incentive to them, let them recoup their investment costs and even allow profit (gasp!). Patent law is the best friend of innovation and dissemination of scientific information. It provides motive to create. It allows monumental investment in something that, once disclosed, can be used by anyone (since it is only an idea).
___ "no. most ideas are patent protected AND kept a trade secret. look at all the patents out there -- how many actually give the necessary info to duplicate the invention ? not many. and this is a BAD THING." ___ I must point out that your above post is completely incorrect. One of the requirements of obtaining a patent is to disclose the invention to the public. Patents are published, you can go to uspto.gov and find them. To get a patent, the applicant must disclose enough information so that a person of ordinary skill in that particular "art" can build the invention. So if you invent and try to patent a device that uses knowledge of semiconductor processing, those who understand the current science and technology of semiconductor processing must be able to read your patent and be able to build your invention. This is called "enablement," and is a requirement of the patent law statute (35 USC, sec. 112, I think). If you don't disclose enough to allow someone else to build your invention, you cannot legally obtain a patent for it. This is part of the quid pro quo of patent law. The inventor gives something to society by creating something that did not previously exist. In return, the people (via the government) give the inventor property rights to the invention (for a limited time--17 years I think). This is to provide profit incentive for the inventor to create inventions, and recoup investment cost. With property rights, an inventor (more often a corporate assignee who paid the inventor to invent) can exclude others from making, using, or selling the patented idea. The point of all this is that patents most definitely are NOT secret. Part of that quid pro quo is that the inventor must tell everyone, up front, exactly how to build the thing and make it work. In fact, it is a legal requirement that an inventor disclose the "best mode" of practicing the invention.