Patent Troll Going After Alzheimer's Researchers 116
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from Nature News:
"The website of the Alzheimer's Institute of America (AIA) doesn't reveal much about the organization, but portrays it as committed to supporting research and patients. Among people who study Alzheimer's disease, however, the AIA, based in St Louis, Missouri, is best known for filing lawsuits against companies and researchers — a practice that scientists say could hamper the progress of research into combating the dreaded disease."
Poetic justice (Score:5, Insightful)
I joined an Alzheimer's support group, but I keep forgetting to go to the meetings...
Re:Poetic justice (Score:5, Interesting)
Can somebody equip an Alzheimer's patient with a few Uzi's
There is no need. The judges that will oversee these cases will have no problem seeing the absurdity of this patent trolls claim's due to the proximity of Alzheimers to their own mortality. They only have a problem seeing patent/copyright trolls for what they are when it affects the young/poor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Until the judge forgets that he was paid off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Common law dictates that the loser of the case has to pay the lawyer fees of the winner.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution shift the research to countries where the loser pays in court. It doesn't even have to be the actual research just the fiscal headquarters of the research. Nothing like loser pays to really quieten down patent trolls.
Re: (Score:1)
How about making all naturally occurring DNA sequences something that CAN'T be patented?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then you have to go about defining "naturally."
Lets start. I promise you'll see soon what a quagmire such a simple suggestion really is...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the concept of putting gene X into organism Y is an obvious concept to even a minimally trained molecular biologist, so it should always be unpatentable.
Potentially, you might allow patenting a specific organism (like you can do with some breeds), but that would be pretty pointless since creating them is so easy.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess methods for actually putting foreign genes into an organism might be patentable. But the DNA sequence itself should not be patentable in any sane universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't prior art be rather easy to prove? Just find someone who has that mutation and was born before the patent application.
I don't see how anyone other than God can hold patents to human DNA sequences.
Re: (Score:3)
And by the way, what is their real address? Because I have a, uh, friend who wants to know...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice story.
Thing is every patent troll has similar .
"oh no, we're not just suing everyone who infringes on our patent on (searching a list)/(using pointers)/(crossing a labrador with a poodle)/(inserting this naturally occurring gene into this other naturally occuring organism )/(insert any other obvious idea).
no.
we're doing it for the greater good."
And funnily enough most of the geneticists I know feel the same way about patents on genes as programmers do about patents on algorithms: that they slow the who
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Joe Stack model isn't a bad idea. After all, if Boomers are going to die anyway they can make that count too.
If there are no intolerable consequences there isn't much reason NOT to waste people who really piss you off.
What shouldn't be patentable (Score:5, Insightful)
The suit concerns an AIA patent on a human DNA sequence used in mouse models of Alzheimer's disease.
This.
Re: (Score:1)
Why is this even patentable? Isn't a human DNA sequence a fact? It sounds like getting a patent on the atomic structure of lead or something.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember watching a documentary on some sea creature that was being studied for possible medical uses. In the end, some genes from it were patented. From the creature that already existed.
Reminds me of a cartoon called I Am Weasel. I.R. Baboon, the dumb character, is jealous that I.M. Weasel, the smart character (as a caveman) just invented the wheel. I.R. then picks up a rock and announces that he has invented the rock.
It was a joke back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What shouldn't be patentable (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
After reading TFA, it sounds to me like the issue isn't with the use of the gene, but with the use of genetically modified rats, which should be protected under the same laws as GM crops. The article indicates the patent is actually on the "mouse models" and not the gene itself.
Not defending the suit, just playing trolls' advocate for a moment.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll leave the arguments about plants and animals to someone else.... But Human DNA? No... I should own my own DNA sequence in perpetuity. No one should be able to patent it. I shouldn't be able to sell it. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you should be able to own a gene, but YOUR particular combination of genes is so unlikely to happen again that it can be considered unique. Each person should own their own genetic combination, and any use of that combination or a derivative of it for profit should entitle that person to a share of the profits.
Re: (Score:2)
There's solid reasoning behind protecting a patent on GM lab animals. I'm no geneticist, but I would assume that there is a significant investment involved in splicing human genes into a rat in such a way that they will reliably develop early onset AD. If they aren't able to profit from that investment, you remove one very useful motive in developing such things.
That said, there's got to be a point at which we say "okay, so you made another GM rat with human genes. The process for this is well-established a
Re: (Score:2)
The other very useful motive being, of course, not dying of Alzheimers (and other similar diseases).
Patents: a method and system for externalizing the costs of enforcing a monopoly that would otherwise require the employment and use of thugs and/or mercenaries.
Re: (Score:2)
'That said, there's got to be a point at which we say "okay, so you made another GM rat with human genes. The process for this is well-established and all you did was repeat something that's been done dozens of times before."'
Which is pretty much the case here. In the patent (which dates from 1998 - transgenic mice had been around since the early 80s) they come right out and say it:
http://patents.com/us-5850003.html [patents.com]
'Standard techniques are used for recombinant nucleic acid methods, polynucleotide synthesis,
Real Life takes the lead! (Score:2)
There are even several AIDS drugs that were derived directly from blood samples taken from desperately poor prosititutes in Africa. They actually patented the poor womens entire DNA sequence. If anything gets you sent to hell, it's this sort of crap.
"Aaaaand Real Life squeezes past Dystopian Sci-Fi on the inside! What a move Carl!"
"You said it Jeff, it's gonna take some sick shit for Team Sci-Fi to retake the lead after a ballsy pass like that."
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you, China!
This is probably why science fiction has moved back to being positive, and on to transhumanism.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress passed a provision in the 80's to allow companies to patent genetically modified crops so someone couldn't simply steal some seeds and resell them.
I appreciate that you've almost certainly presented a vastly simplified account of what happened, but how was that not already sufficiently covered by existing laws?
Re: (Score:3)
Prior art being unpatentable, the playing of Go is not much widely suggested. In fact they don't much suggest anything easy, simple, or relatively available. Go is different than Sudoku and crosswords because it relies on mental processing more than pure mental recall; you have to analyze the board and determine what to recall all over the place, and then analyze various combinations, possible permutations, advantages, disadvantages... it's rather complex mental processing.
It's somewhat well established
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like getting a patent on a new island that you discovered.
This sucks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
DNA being patentable really, really sucks.
Unless someone steals *your* DNA, makes hundreds of thousands of clones of you, and then sells them as 'happy home helpers'. You might get a bit annoyed with random people assuming you've escaped from domestic service, and a bit miffed with the profits generated from selling copies of you. At that point, you might, just might, see the positive aspects of DNA patents. Admittedly, as a justification for DNA patents, that's a pretty thin excuse based mainly in tin foil hat land.... In all other aspect they ar
When life is patented, only outlaws will live (Score:1, Troll)
These patents are valid only in Fuckupistan (the US), right? No problem in that case; nobody would be able to afford the fruits of the research anyway.
The sweedish family has no rights to their genes? (Score:1)
All these organizations are fighing over rights to a discovery. They did not invent this gene they found it existing in the wild. If anyone deserves owership of it, it's the human family in sweeden who contain the gene as part of their person and suffer from its effects. I'm sure this family just wants altimers cured.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah it's pretty bad, sorry about that. It's a work computer and stupid IE7 doesn't have the auto spell checker like fire fox. No red lines and everything's OK right.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This is good. The trolls are (stupidly) getting into areas people really care about (rather than software innovation) and the backlash could be very useful in driving change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Now if they would just get into areas politicians really care about... like patents for ways to expand bureaucracy/taxation/government spending.
Now, please excuse me, while I finish off the patent application for my new invention.
Method of reducing a national debt by printing additional currency, and tendering newly printed currency to debtors
Meanwhile, AIA CEO Darl McBride ... (Score:4, Funny)
... demanded a $799 license fee from every sufferer of Alzheimer's Disease, since he owns the copyrights to the disease.
Darl: "How dare you develop that disease without paying me first!"
Re: (Score:2)
... demanded a $799 license fee from every sufferer of Alzheimer's Disease, since he owns the copyrights to the disease.
Darl: "How dare you develop that disease without paying me first!"
They all just forgot.
AIA website looks trollish too... (Score:1)
Wait (Score:3)
Re:Wait .... All Imports (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patent on human genes ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why any form of patent on naturally occurring genes is complete and utter bullshit.
Is AIA also suing the Swedish family in which they found this mutation? Because, they're clearly infringing on the patent.
There is no way that it makes sense to be able to patent parts of someone else's DNA. This doesn't do anything to "further innovation" or any of the things people say patents are for ... it lets some idiot patent something he found (not created), sell it to a 3rd party, and then that 3rd party prevents other people from using it for research. DNA is a "fact" not an "invention".
In this case, I'd like to know which takes precedence .. the NIH requirement to share the mice, or this absurd "patent".
This is just so wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see that if you develop a mechanism to create heart muscles from scratch (and using mechanisms other than what the body does), that should be patentable. That's a process, and an invention.
But, if you patent the heart muscle that I already have in me, then the patent system has gone horribly wrong and the whole notion of patents has becom
Re: (Score:2)
"..the patent system has gone horribly wrong and the whole notion of patents has become absurd" - Yes ....this is unfortunately the reality
Re: (Score:2)
This is why any form of patent on naturally occurring genes is complete and utter bullshit.
Is AIA also suing the Swedish family in which they found this mutation? Because, they're clearly infringing on the patent.
Actually, they wouldn't be infringing the patent (which is also why the naturally occurring genes in the Swedish family aren't anticipatory prior art). The patent claims require that the gene exist in isolation from any nucleic acids, and also require an immortalized mammalian cell line. Neither of those exist in nature, since that Swedish family is neither immortal, nor has DNA strands that are so short that they're a single gene.
Re: (Score:2)
The gene can't exist in isolation AND be part of an immortal cell line. The cells need other genes. If a member of that family gets cancer, they might (in theory) be in violation as they would then have a line of immortal cells containing that gene.
I say of that form of Alzheimer's should sue AIA for not keeping "their" gene out of the general population.
action time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boneitis (Score:2)
Fry: Boneitis? That's a funny name for a horrible disease.
80s Guy: There was no cure at the time. A drug company came close, but I arranged a hostile takeover and sold off all the assets. Made a cool hundred mil.
This is a good thing (Score:2)
Make a nuisance of yourself that is so obvious that even the most corrupt politician could see that it affects their future campaign contributions and their best buddies' businesses.
Go crazy guys!
Re: (Score:2)
Their "best buddies" are the patent trolls, plus the others with a vested interest in the scam, dishing out campaign contributions. Constituents? In the business, those are known as the "marks".
I truly hope... (Score:1)
...that no one here ever has to see a loved one suffer from this disease. Of course, statistics will ensure that at least several will.
My dad was diagnosed with it, and it progressed at a frightening rate (about half the average time) before passing away due to a complication.
To watch someone you know and love lose a little bit more of themselves every day is heartbreaking in every sense of the word. When your own parent doesn't even know who you are after 30-40 years (38 in my case), you're just at a com
Similar case over a breast cancer gene (Score:3)
The EFF is fighting a similar battle over a patent on a gene that increases the risk of breast cancer. Appeals Court Hears Argument in the "Breast Cancer Gene" Case [eff.org]
Because Myriad owned the patents, testing on these two genes could only take place in Myriad’s own labs – meaning that others could not develop tests on those genes, depriving women from alternative (and cheaper) tests...in March 2010, the district court found in the plaintiffs’ favor and invalidated the patents....
To steal (and modify) a line from The Onion (Score:1)
Patent Troll Going After Alzheimer's Researchers this week, every week.
Original headline: Nursing home patient excited to be going home today, every day.
When I grow up I want to become a patent troll... (Score:1)
Probably, these people are forced to become patent troll by their financial circumstance, we should not be angry at them. They deserve our pity and help from their awful situation that has lead them to live a life of a destructive harbringer of everything good and cuddly.
Re: (Score:2)
Clarification (Score:2)
Can we please stop this shit? (Score:2)
Related? (Score:1)
This is the same as the RosKamp Institute, http://www.rfdn.org/ [rfdn.org] another neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorder operation... related??
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong title (Score:2)
It should have been: Alzheimer researchers forget about patents.
Hamper WHAT? (Score:1)
Progress? Into combating Alzheimer's Disease? What progress?
I haven't seen any progress on that front. At all. Alzheimer's is notoriously intractable. Every few years there's a story in the news about some new medical research into Alzheimer's, but it always comes to nothing. Aluminum pots? Not relevant after all. Amyloid inhibitors? Useless. Beta carotine? Apparently unrelated. Ginko? In
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well, might as well just give up then if it's hard, eh?
Re: (Score:1)
Only harmful for Alzheimer? (Score:1)
dude. (Score:2)
Were did these guys come from? A comic book from the 70s?
Do they also twitch their moustaches and laugh maniacally?
Sue all these bastards (Score:2)
Just patent Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine and sue these bastard patent trolls out of the market! Lets just get this done and over with.
I worked in the medial industry and seen the amount of stress and hardship chronic illness causes to the sick and their families. Its sad that all this trolling is preventing potentially beneficial treatments. I'll bet the CEO of some of these patent trolls truly don't give a shit. We can only be so kind as to feel the same about them.
Re: (Score:1)
So AIA, have you ever had Alzheimers? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What AIA is after Jackson? (Score:1)
God bless the USA. (Score:2)
What a sick place America has become. Just F'ing sick.
How far CAN patent trolls go? (Score:2)
Anonymous? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)