Venter Institute Claims Patent on Synthetic Life 163
jimsnail writes "J. Craig Venter and the Institute that bears his name are again moving into new territory in the field of genetics. Genetic patents, that is. They are seeking a broad patent that would give them ownership of a 'free living organism that can grow and replicate' constructed entirely from synthetic DNA. The ETC Group is challenging the claim. 'Scientists at the institute designed the bacterium to have a "minimal genome"--the smallest set of genes any organism can live on. The project, which began in the early 2000s, was partly a philosophical exercise: to help define life itself better by identifying its bare-bones requirements. But it was also fraught with commercial possibilities: if one could reliably recreate a standardized, minimal life form, other useful genes could be added in as needed for various purposes.'"
Mixed Reaction (Score:3, Interesting)
My reaction to this is mixed. First, I'm suspicious of this kind of sweeping patent protection in general. And it is far from clear (in the cited article at least) that they actually have such a genome yet, so patent protection seems strange. "We think we are going to do this, so grant us a patent."
On the other hand it may take 20 years or so to actually be able to use this kind of technology in meaningful ways (and have drugs produced this way approved by the government). So granting patent protection now means that it would expire just about the time that people might be able to take advantage of it.
On the other other hand, if they really are patenting the idea, they'll probably re-patent (or extend the patent with new claims or however that works) any usable variation when they actually get it so they're likely to find ways to stretch such patent protection out for quite a while.
The future is not bright... (Score:3, Interesting)
The patent madness (Score:3, Interesting)
Presumably, this is a part of the transition to an "IP economy", and they've been instructed to keep lower standards as to make sure most of the IP cake has been divided before the international competition becomes too rough.
And then they use heavy-handed tactics to force other countries to submit, misusing the Berne convention [wikipedia.org] and the WTO, forcing the world to implement patent and copyright law that doesn't reflect the original intentions behind patents and copyright at all.
Patents and copyright as they have become does no longer serve the interests of society, nor even the long-term interests of the companies that gain them.
It's been said before, but I can't seem to find the original quote, that the emergence of the Internet wouldn't have been possible if patents had been used then as it is today. What other emerging markets are we closing down with these overbroad patents? What does this madness really cost us? There's no way we can know.
Of course, the harder they tighten their grip, the more nations will start slipping through their fingers
I wonder when the first real copyright/patent/data havens show up. Imagine the advantages companies located within such a nation would get. Of course, they would be unlikely to be allowed to sell their wares on the open market, but the citizens within this country could possibly rise to a much higher standard of living, and of course smuggling would be extremely lucrative...
Re:USPTO application text (Score:2, Interesting)
If this is really the minimal set (which seems kind of unlikely), I would even call it a huge accomplishment.
Anyway this patent seems to be exactly what a patent was meant to do. It describes a complex invention, and it describes it in a very detailed way. I don't see anything wrong with it. This is the biological version of a machine design. Ok it's the description of a near universal machine (if a bit complex to program), but it seems to me a very good patent.
Exactly the sort of thing you'd want a patent to be.
But don't let sanity prevent you from getting your panties in a knot.
Re:Mixed Reaction (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is, have they actually made this bacteria, and does it actually live, reproduce and die like a bacteria should? At this point it's not clear they invented anything, more than just taking a bacteria, removing some genes and patenting the result (which they could theoretically do indefinitely until they find some combination that works). Furthermore, it's not clear they're actually inventing anything at all, but rather optimizing the organism by removing defective/defunct versions of other genes (essentially stripping the whitespace, which might actually be a bad thing; one of the reasons DNA is durable is entron regions, DNA that can be damaged or mutate without affecting the organism).
The linked article says they've half-way succeeded creating this thing (55 of 101 possible knock-outs yields a living result). Is that enough grounds to allow this to be patented? It's not up to me to say, but it's an interesting question.
Re:Not patenting all life... (Score:3, Interesting)
If I read between the lines correctly, they have a rough idea of the functions of 482 genes of a bacteria. They think that 101 of them are non-essential for survial and 381 are for protein encoding (how many genes aren't?).
They want to patent the guess and ask any people who create new strains of bacteria base on that tiny bit of knowledge to pay up?!
Can you do that?