PTO's New DNA Guidelines 151
Robert Wilde writes "The National Law Journal has published an analysis of the PTO's new proposed DNA guidelines. The PTO will accept written comments until March 22. " I think this is one of the most important issues of the upcoming years - can company's patent genes that exist in all of us? What work should be done in genetics? What do you folks think?
Let the patenting begin!!! (Score:1)
Patenting Sex Genes (Score:1)
Oppose gene patents - your life may depend on it! (Score:2)
Gene Patenting Issues (Score:2)
If a company doesn't consider an area to be likely to produce "sufficient" profit, they won't follow that line of research. I've talked to and heard tales from researchers working for private corps commenting on how they aren't free to follow their own research unless they can show the likelihood of "significant" profit. These are the types of places that are patenting the isolation of new genes without going further. Sort of like gene squatting
Being an open source advocate I found it pretty stomach turning when I was doing my post-grad in genetics because it is relatively closed mouthed and I was used to the idea of distributing information "for the greater good". Gene patenting laws are and will be abused by large corporations with their own self interest as the primary goal.
I'm now changing over to computing because I like the atmosphere more... (I was especially put off by companies such as Monsanto who have an *appalling* track record).
I'd hope that, while known for their apathy in non-tech areas, that the techies who have seen the effects of these sorts of laws on computing act on this.
open source and competition (Score:2)
It would be a loss to social progress if the basic gene maps were patented, because this would prevent the many various activities that could be carried out with those maps. It is more to the benefit of society, and eventually to science and industry, that the basic gene maps are open source.
Based on this, a wealth of opportunities is possible. Patenting processes to mine and manipulate gene maps to solve specific problems, and the processes to deliver and apply gene therapies. There are innumerable commercial opportunities that would be stifled by keeping the gene maps closed source.
You must remember, also, that it is going to take some time to data mine and otherwise process and experiment with gene therapies. The gene maps, as they stand now, are built from a limited subset of humans, and are a very complex interweave of many variables. Finding out which are relavent for various purposes, and combinations thereof, is the next step. The argument may then be, that in this next step, that should also be open source.
Perhaps it is wise to draw the analogy with chemicals, in that the discovery of basic chemicals and constituent parts of electromechanical systems was open source.
In the end, who will benefit from the closed source model ? The Wellcome Trust is already in the process of mapping the pool, and the argument could be that this will be accelerated by the free market (US startups) if genes could be patented.
I would suggest the following evidence for why genes should not be patented: 1) the basic premise that genes are a natural discovery, similar to that of chemistry, biology, etc; and that if they were "invented", then the case may be different; 2) the weaker premise that for economic and technological progress, the patenting of the gene pool will cause far further damage than it not being patented.
matthew.gream@pobox.com
Re:This is not a black and white issue, nothing is (Score:1)
At the same time, however, you can't think up the best way to get to a place if you don't care where you?re going.
This seems irrelevant to me.
Where we are going is the open release of information.
The question regarding "the best way" is: Is the best way to get there by creating an economic incentive to release information, or let information be released at a different pace through non-economic incentives?
Do we agree on that?
you need to have a certain goal in mind. I believe that the goal, in any non-trivial matter should be the advancement of human kind.
I'm with you 100 %. I also agree that profits are not a goal... but you said :
creating the best medical technology possible in the shortest amount of time (and disseminating it to the rest of the world)
There are 2 seperate items there. Stronger patents will help getting medical technology "created" faster, but it will adversely affect the dissemination of the information.
Or more specificly, while the information will be disseminated, it will not be done in a method which allows it to be useful. The only way to get the use out of it would be to violate or render useless the economic protectionthat the patent extends. What good is a cure for breast cancer if the patenting company prices it above the means of most people. I can show theoreticly that any company acting as a monopoly in a contstrained market will restrict quantity, or inflate price to maximize thier profits (there are some exceptions based on increasing returns to scale and such, though this is not one).
Summary: Patents have a social cost. Mathematicly. In this example, in human lives, and disproportionately human lives who are already facing the suffering of poverty.
Of course, your point about speed of rollout is valid. Patents can be shown to have a social benefit.
But that gets us back to the "extent to which" argument.
Again, I say reduce, but do not destroy the rights which patents impart. But I will readily admit that without at least a one better datum, this is just my (semi informed) opinion which stems from my belief that the incentives in the governmental system will favor the monopoly, and subsequently the social cost.
Thank you for this discussion!
Re:Important ramifications (Score:2)
To which I say "Of course we will have the research, just at a different pace. The fact that the human genome project exists is testiment to the will of (some) people to get this research done despite the prospect of future monopoly profits".
Please convince me otherwise.
Also, as a country where we can theoriticly change the law through taking action in the political process, we could impose such rules as lowering patent protection to 3 years.
Could not that be beneficial?
I guess my point is that the benefits of patents are a function of deltas in multi-variable functions, and that any truely black and white statement really isn't going to be correct (although it may be politicly efficacious).
I've seen good arguments for patent protections of some kind, but I'm still not convinced that we shouldn't be doing everything we can to limit the current system. (This without regard to pragmatic and ethical issues with such things as software, business models, or genetic algorythms).
For what it is worth, the older I get, the less I find I know. I hope I don't come across as preachy- I really am searching for an argument to change my mind.
Re:This is not a black and white issue, nothing is (Score:3)
You both picked archtypical arguments on the poles of the issue. Patents are useful to the extent which they speed "discovery" (or innovation, or whatever you want to label it).
I don't think anyone _should_ argue that innovation won't happen without patents. It certainly can be shown to have happened again and again in the past (It can also be shown how some technology was kept hidden through trade secret mechanisms which could have benefitted society more had it been released under patent). Its the rate of innovation that is at question (again, I'm using innovation, but discovery would work just as well).
IMHO, Patents have a valid use, but the extent to which they are applied is negatively correlated with the cost to society so they should be scrutinized and limited as much as possible.
Unfortunately that isn't happening. And as much as the middle ground is probably where the answer to this lies, I think it may be better to argue against patents, at least until they become more reasonable.
Ah well.... I do think the original posters point about the original intent of patent is a valid one.
Re:This is not a black and white issue, nothing is (Score:3)
OK, in that case, what you are saying is valid. I may take umbrage at that much, much part, but that is only because I haven't seen data.
What our laws should do is foster advance as quickly as possible.
Ahh...but our laws don't do that. To guarentee the maximum rate of discovery, we should guarentee the monopoly for life! Maybe even extend patents in other ways. But your point about pragmatism is well taken.
I agree that a pragmatic solution is best. I would favor modifying the patent system to provide protection for 2 years. Enough to guarentee return on research, but enough to bring in competition quick enough so that the dissinfranchised can get the same quality of care as the rest of us.
Bear in mind that 96% of research (in the world) is done in less than 10 countries [1]. We are quickly getting into a social justice issue if there is a distrobutional conflict with dispersing technology to 3rd world nations (hint: there is).
I don't care how you "feel". Your not morally right if your not actually right.
Hmmm... I care how others feel because I think they have wisdom to share with me. However, Im not really concerned with morality. I'm concerned with what is best for humanity as a whole. You have failed to convince me that the good of protection outweighs the bad of protection (not that it matters).
What I really want to say is that there are times in economic analysis where we can say that something is true based on theories of rationality, competitive behavior, and a myriad assortment of other factors. With patents, we have a fundamental positive result pitted against a fundamental negative result, and we can't say what is best without studying data. I have looked hard and not found any (non-anectdotal) data.
In the absence of data or undisputed theory, opinionated people such as ourselves can discuss our thoughts, but can't be sure of our "correctness".
I guess I should apologise for not seeming sensitive to your human argument, but I really believe that policy should be the result of rational thought. *shrug* So to that I will strive.
[1] Bayoumi, Tarnim, Coc, Helpman "R&D spillovers in global growth" : 1995
Economic consequences will fall on governments (Score:4)
Specificly, I am referring to an interesting story I heard on NPR this morning referring to a report on the British public health system.
To summarize, it said that even though the current flu epidemics were throwing into sharp relief the problems of the public system, that system would survive. What it would NOT handle would be the costs of using genetic processes that were currently being patented, and would presumably come into economic use in 10 to 20 years (these may be conservative numbers- I really don't know).
The interesting thing is to what extent liberal governments will be willing to bear the brunt of a foreign nations intellectual property.
You see various well known international violations of IP now, but even in those situations, it is hard to see how the governments are in direct conflict with supporting the IP. Once an incentive is in place to circumvent the international law, I would expect far more countries choosing to shun WTO involvement just to avoid the TRIPS agreement.
To throw out an incredibly ill thought out prediction= It is possible that the costs of supporting international IP will outweigh the gains of WTO membership sometime in the future- especially for developing nations, or nations which can utilize semi-protectionary measures such as regional free trade zones to mitigate the loss of truely international trade.
Just some random thoughts...
Re:Copyleft the human genome! (Score:1)
A biotech company may have spent tens of years and billions of dollars on a discovery of that magnitude, and you expect them to just give it away?
well if that's the case, where's the ROI? and, if researcher's know their work will be essentially stolen from them (let's not mince words, that is what you propose) why would they even begin?
Um, prior use? (Score:2)
If there is a process for synthesizing genes, fine patent it if there is something new about it.
Bill Gates and bio-tech (Score:1)
Everybody here knows that Bill's major interest outside of 'world domination' is bio-tech stocks. What do you want to bet that he hopes that gene patenting is allowed?
The idea that Bill Gates could own a piece of me is the scariest thing I can think of.
Re:Patents do not last forever (Score:1)
That was certainly one of the ideas behind patents, along with the idea of disclosure so the knowledge ends up in the public domain after a bit.
These days, however, with more & more obvious things being patented, as well as found things like DNA, patents have become a way for any bozo to keep knowledge *out* of the public domain -- to hold an entire industry hostage.
Re:Gene patent reqs. (Score:2)
EST are useful for detecting whether a gene is present and can therefore be used to piece together the big puzzle of DNA strings that the genome projects produce, but can also be used to detect a disease I presume (I don't fully understand why companies try to patent EST:s).
See this policy paper [faseb.org] for an interesting view on the patent issue.
Lars
__
Re:i just don't get it (Score:2)
Some gene patenting seems reasonable to me, because they require a large investment in time, money and development in general, but there are certainly many cases that are downright trivial. The concern among many academic researchers is that the patent offices are giving away gold that rightfully belongs to humanity.
New species have, sort of, been in patent applications. I have heard of a case where a company tried to patent a compound found in a plant which would make a good ingredient for toothpaste. Indigenous people have chewed on these plants for generations... The patent was supposedly turned down. Anyone heard more of this story?
There is also a village in Italy where the locals have barely no heart problems. It turns out that they carry a mutated form of a protein that is very good at breaking down colesterol (sp?). This protein has been patented and is now developed to become a drug. It remains to be seen if the company is successful.
Lars
__
Re:Oppose gene patents - your life may depend on i (Score:2)
I presume you mean the Sanger Institute?
It was researchers from several institutes/universties, including US researchers involved in that feat. The foremost private initiative, Celera Genomics, have promised to donate humage genome data early this year. Many academics worry that they will not stand to their promise though. However, that is independent of the issue of patents.
Lars
__
Re:This article isn't quite about patenting genes (Score:1)
God is a Real Programmer.
Gene patents not necessarily bad (Score:2)
Furthermore, a patent does not prevent competitor research (refinement of the patented item or process), it only prevents the marketting of it and profitting from it.
Now, the patent term is what, 7 years?
In gene technology, with it's profound effects on humanity and biology everywhere, a 7 year proving-ground for a process is a Good Thing. If a single company does the testing, works out the kinks, and provides the benefit of the technology in a limited (by being a single source) way, while everyone else learns from their example/mistakes, then by the time the patent expires, the technology is more mature, and therefore safer.
It wasn't until the PC 'matured' that the clone market really took off. The standards were laid and defined first. We saw what tended to work, and what fell flat on it's face. Once 'this works' was established, everyone jumped in and found ways of doing it cheaply. If we took a similar path with genetics, then a single (probably huge) company will get a head start. Either because they can afford the up-front research, or because they buy out a small innovator (and their patent). A company such as this will be heavily scrutinized, and controlled by the government to a greater extent than a small, independent, Taiwanese gene-slicing clone maker. They will be held more accountable during the term of the patent, and the technology will be raised according to regulations, and not the profit driven free-market.
Of course, I could be totally off the mark, since Apple seems to have a stranglehold on it's products. Are they holding patents, or is more involved?
Re:prior art? (Score:1)
I am uneasy about patenting processes relating to genes, as I am about patenting medicines, etc. (Yes, I understand the arguments for it, but I also understand the arguments against; I have yet to decide which outweighs the other.)
I am dead against patenting genes, or any part of them, that appear in living organisms. Ones created in a lab, possibly, but not naturally ocurring ones. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well try to patent grass, or sand. (And that's without even considering the ethical questions it would raise...)
Tim
Re:It's like holding your kids hostage! (Score:1)
Who's to say that immortality is a good thing. Didn't you ever hear the queen song "Who Wants to Live Forever?" :)
The problem with the human genome (Score:3)
redundant (Score:1)
most patents are useless (lacking utlity),
baseless (lacking evidence), simple (complex ?!)
what has happened ?
were they ever innovative, novel, and containing
utility ?
Re:Perl and the human genome (Score:1)
David Corbin
Re:This is not a black and white issue, nothing is (Score:2)
Copyrights on the gene sequence will be valid, because genes are programs, they are creative works, or at least, the ones we create will be. If someone makes a gene that bears too much resemblence to yours you could sue them, much the same as if they took any written work, changed a few lines, and remarketed it. Some basic sequences will be common in all work, but so are words and phrases in written works. It's the order of these macro units that will be copyrightable.
Not only this, but with the trend in software patents, it'll probably be possible to patent some methods. For instance, producing endorphins to hide pain is a natural body process and shouldn't be patentable. Ditto with the ways the body produces endorphins. But if you had a way to produce endorphins artificials, with modified genes, your specific method would be patentable. A happy medium preventing scientific discovery about the human system from being locked away, yet rewarding the discovery of specific methods of interacting with that system.
You then go on to assert that without patents we'd be eating gourmet cornbread, but things like medication to cure Alzheimer's would never be found.
I would like to point out that patents are a fairly recent legal invention, in the scope of human history, and much innovation was done without them.
Patents are a delicate balance. Given that patents do give companies some guarantee of exclusivity, they do speed up development. But, take this to extremes. With unending patents, or patents with a 100 year period even, development would slow to a trickle because almost all inventions are based on older works, and if those works were off limits, even by inependant discovery, needless workarounds, or long waits would be the only way of bringing out new inventions.
At either end you have slowed developments, either by secrecy, or over-protection. Somewhere in the middle is the best balance. I don't think we can stick one number to this. One year of protection in the software industry is a full product lifetime, but twenty years is barely a product cycle in the airplane industry, where 777s were in development for ten or more years, and are expected to sell for 25 or more to recoup development costs. Should we use 17 years, or any other number, and stifle research in industries on either end of this, or base patent terms on a ongoing study of the field, to maintain a proper balance.
I personally suspect 3-5 years would be adequate protection in the pharmecutical industry, especially if the term had a limit on the number of years a drug could be in production and protected. Like an eight year term, or public-availability +2, to allow for testing and development, but still get generic drugs to market to allow for affordable disease fighting.
Re:It's like holding your kids hostage! (Score:2)
Why wouldn't he be? The issue is what should be patentable, not thoughts about what the article says. You're just using something unrelated to attack him with. Ditto with your later comment about gambling (Though I do agree that gambling is exploitation of the stupid.)
DNA is not encrypted.
Perhaps not, as in cyphered, but it is encoded, which is a form of encryption. The idea is solid though, that DNA is instructions for the cells that make up our bodies, but we don't have a clue of how it does that.
Hrm, someone hasn't been paying attention. In order for a patent to be a patent, it has to be public knowledge.
Sure, patents make the process public, but they don't make it available until the patent ends. And given the trend in copyrights, patent terms could end up getting longer.
It'd suck if the cure for Alzheimers (to use a common example) was based on a patent help by a bankrupt company, and unavailable because its creditors, upon hearing of potential money, held up the bankruptcy litigation for years. It could happen. It has happened before with lesser technologies.
Patents have a purpose, but they aren't universally applicable, or appropriate in the same form for all markets. Why is the same patent term that is used in the slowly-innovating auto industry also appropriate in the rapidly advancing drug industry? You could argue it should be longer or shorter, but you can't think both are similar enough that the same term is completely appropriate.
Re:Copyleft the human genome! (Score:1)
Wasn't that your Founding Fathers? Or something. RMS wasn't exactly the first to point it out, I thought that was the whole reason it existed, and since that's the case, credit should go to them, not He Who Should Be Worshipped (ISPHO).
*waits for '-1 flamebait'*
ISPHO - In Some People's Humble Opinion
Re:The problem with the human genome (Score:2)
Learn English Please! (Score:1)
'can company's patent genes that exist in all of us?'
No, but perhaps *companies* can patent genes that exist in all of us! People, apostrophes are used when the indication of possession is desired, or to indicate a contraction, as in 'This company's main product is Linux'. It may be a relatively small issue (especially when compared to patents on genes), but please, let's (a contraction!) not bastardize the English language unless truly necessary!
This paper... (Score:1)
I think andover should take some of ther much-buckos and pay a patent lawyer to read over this and tell us what it actualy means...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Not a problem... (Score:1)
Or, maybe I should just patent the X chromosome and force everyone to pay me royaltys. twice as much from the woman
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Huh? (Score:1)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:This is not a black and white issue, nothing is (Score:1)
Yes, that's the general Idea I've been trying to get across. At the same time, however, you can't think up the best way to get to a place if you don't care where you're going.
You can't apply rationality to nothing and end up with the best course of action, you need to have a certain goal in mind. I believe that the goal, in any non-trivial matter should be the advancement of human kind. In this case, creating the best medical technology possible in the shortest amount of time (and disseminating it to the rest of the world).
I don't think that maximum corporate profits are a valid goal, in this field.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:This is not a black and white issue, nothing is (Score:1)
Think about the computer industry. Do you really think that all of the advancements that we have today would be here if we relied solely on Universities? 90% of the pure science aspects even come from corporations. IBM, Xerox, independent think-tanks are the innovators, not the EE departments of major universities (other then MIT, maybe)
The same is rapidly becoming true of the genetics industry. Sure, we could ban genetic patents, and let Universities do all the work, but I guaranty you not anywhere near as much work would be getting done.
Where exactly do you think the drugs that suppress HIV come from? I'll give you a hint it wasn't universities. Oh, and all those anti-viral agents are patented, btw. Do you think the companies that made them would have if they hadn't been able to make money?
as for Gibson's world, are you talking about the sprawl series, or the last three (the bridge series?)
I think he's dead on as far as the new books go, unfortunately (I'd say his old books are just to weird to use as predictions
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
I think we agree :) (Score:1)
Yes, that's exactly what I think. The best thing is to find a balance between the necessary capital incentive for development, and the cost of not allowing the ideas to go free.
Two possible solutions would be to examine each patent on an individual basis, or to regulate the prices charged for necessary drugs.
It's also important to remember that 3rd world countries can simply choose to ignore our patent claims. This is what South Africa (though not a 3rd world country, per se) Is doing with HIV suppressors.
The best solution I think is to try and tweak the situation we have until its optimal. Perhaps that's what this bill/law/whatever is trying to do, perhaps not. Of course, none of us can tell, because its written in some of the most obtuse legal-ees I've ever seen
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:Patents do not last forever (Score:1)
No, I don't. But then I wasn't speaking of software; I was speaking of computer hardware. And no, I don't think that the pace would have been anywhere near what it has been if there were no computer hardware patents.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:It's like holding your kids hostage! (Score:1)
On the other hand, why would anyone try to invent and sell an immortality pill if they couldn't patent it and sell it? I mean, sure they would get to live forever, but they could just keep the information to themselves and a few billionaires who he can give and watch over carefully so that they do not reverse engineer it...
Do you think that would be a better situation? I don't. And that's what I said.
You seem to be saying two things. That A) There should be no patents on human DNA, and B) that medical technology should advance as quickly as possible. However you show no evidence that the two are linked in anyway. In fact I would say that the opposite were true patents lead to faster scientific research. I mean, after all what motivation is there to do this research if there's no money it in? I think you need to look at this more carefully.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
of course regulation is needed (Score:1)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Gene Patenting (Score:2)
At first glance it may seem that any patents in the genetic field are bad for it, after all if one scientist can't build off what someone else has done, how can science move forward? But I don't believe that this is necessarily true, for instance would current genetic research get as much funding as it currently is no patents were granted at all? In my opinion it wouldn't. What's the point of "liberating" a scientific field if no one is paying for research?
Like many slashdot readers I don't really understand exactly how genetic patenting works. I'm pretty sure that as of now, there are almost no new genes being developed, only discoveries as to the effects of genes commonly found in nature. I've heard some of you say that patenting a "discovery" is against the idea of patents, but I don't think that definition holds to the Genetic industry anymore then it does to the pharmaceuticals industry. I mean, how can any new drug not be just a discovery of the effects of some certain compound on the human body.
I'm not saying that we should allow any kind of genetic patent, but at the same time I think that the idea of genetic patents is not completely without merit. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I like many of us not in the genetics field are not really qualified to say where that line should be drawn (or even where it would be possible to draw a line)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:It's like holding your kids hostage! (Score:2)
Well, then you are certainly qualified to comment on it, now aren't you.
Anyways, my feelings are strong on this subject. Flat out, companies should NOT be able to patent our DNA. DNA is should be part of the public domain. God gave it to us as open-source, although no one has yet to reverse engineer the encryption.
DNA is not encrypted. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a genetic scientist, and I don't really understand exactly what it is that we are trying to patent. But I will agree that I don't think that companies should be allowed to patent genetic pattern that appears to be in a large number of humans already.
It is not something that we as a species can afford to allow to be locked away as Corporate Trade Secrets. Some day, the very existence of the species may depend upon this knowledge being as common and easily available as a Gideon Bible.
Hrm, someone hasn't been paying attention. In order for a patent to be a patent, it has to be public knowledge. The whole idea behind patents is to expand human knowledge by making it easier for a company to have a limited time monopoly on there discovery of invention, as opposed to trying to keep it trade secret.
Play a few hands of blackjack at www.GreatWorldCasino.com [greatworldcasino.com] and let me know what you think of my Java Servlets!
Thank you for creating technology the sole purpose of witch is to cheat money from the stupid, and then having the audacity to claim the moral high ground.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Patent law (Score:2)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:This is not a black and white issue, nothing is (Score:2)
I'm not saying that they will not happen, I'm just saying that they will happen much, much more slowly. When it comes to biotech, the faster advances are made, the more human lives are saved. If we have to wait 100 year, or even 25 for a cure that would have come about that many more hundreds of thousands of people will have to suffer through Alzheimer's disease.
I think we need to be pragmatic about this. What our laws should do is foster advance as quickly as possible.
Certainly some research would be done in genetics, but anywhere near the current rate without patents. By slowing down the research system, you would literally be killing people. I don't care how you "feel". Your not morally right if your not actually right.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Patents do not last forever (Score:3)
Would you prefer it if pharmaceutical companies did not patent there discoveries, instead holding them as trade secret? If that were the case then the information would never become a part of human knowledge.
I don't think its to unreasonable to allow a company, if it finances its own research to claim genetic patents, however I do draw the line at patenting DNA witch is a majority of human beings. When a patent is filed it usually means that if it were not, that knowledge would simply not exist at all.
The genetic industry, much like the computer industry in past few decades is rapidly becoming a market driven system, meaning that most of the research and development in the field is going to be done by corporations rather universities. If a corporation cannot gain a competitive advantage by having spending the money to research, then it will not do research at all.
Rather then cause the genetic field to grow, it would do more to retard it. Imagine if no computer companies were allowed to gain patents. Do you honestly think that we would get any good new technology if we had to wait for it to come out of a university? We'd probably all still be using 5micron CPUs.
Under current law, a patent doesn't last forever, about 17 years (or 29 for a drug, I'm not sure what would apply here), I'd be willing to be that in a zero-intellectual property environment we probably wouldn't see the advance for at least that long
I think that its best for us to consider what will be the best course of action for the advancement of science, and the human race as opposed to knee-jerk reactions based on what we believe to be the 'moral' course of action.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
This is not a black and white issue, nothing is. (Score:5)
The patenting of genetic information is banned. Company X was about to start research on the DNA that does cause Alzheimer's. This research, if done, will result in a potential cure, however there projected costs for the project are $300 million dollars. Now, were they to do this research under your new proposed guidelines they wouldn't make any more money then the companies that didn't spend all that money, so they decide to scrap the idea, and decide to start researching new kinds of tastier corn.
Under the current situation, what you describe is possible, one company for about 17 years will be the only company that will be able to cure Alzheimer's disease. However, I believe this would be preferable to having no cure for Alzheimer's at all don't you?
You're not morally right if you not actually right.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Re:the nutty view of it all (Score:1)
You can't patent a finger, but you can patent a process that will create fingers.
That's it, I'm patenting evolution!
(Or I'm patenting God, if you happen to be of that belief. Whatever, please no religious comments stemming from this)
Nobody else will be allowed to evolve, and any process that mimics natural selection (i.e. market economies) will all have to pay massive licensing fees.
---sig---
Prior Art? (Score:3)
---sig---
Re:the nutty view of it all (Score:1)
I don't know if anyone has either, but I do know that companies are thinking about this very thing. I have a colaborator at a large US biotech firm. We are actually working on something totally unrelated to their work, but the corporate lawyers have told him that he can't send my a set of primers he designed. He has apparently given them to several people already, and if he gives them to anyone else, he (or his employer) apparently looses some sort of intelectual property rights to them. It turns out I probably won't need them, but this is already something of an issue...
So here's my take on this (Score:2)
So. I've done some basic genetics stuff, including just enough "lab" work to say I've messed around with (safe) e. coli to splice in a simple resistance gene (to a specific antibiotic). It looks like the issue here isn't patenting large segments of the genome, but small ones. Not a matter of patenting sequences that have effects (allele-level), but sequences that are used as tools to get at these larger, more complicated parts.
At a certain level, these are also "naturally occurring"; they probably *do* exist in some form in organisms that are heavily resistant to genetic damage (as tools to recover from it). However, they really are tools in the circumstances the patent office is seeing them under. I hesitate to think of the mess if a human gene is brought up for patent as a tool.
I think that this is a step in the right direction (I fit in, as do most here, I would guess, with the purists who don't like the idea of patenting genes much). I hope there is a long hard look taken at each proposed genetic patent, and that there is a relaxing of the rules for the exceptions mentioned at the end of the article.
I think the biggest problem (and this has been noted repeatedly with respect to software as well) is that common law and precedents are being applied to situations never dreamed of, or at least taken into account, when they were derived.
Re:Patents do not last forever (Score:1)
Have you forgotten about the Human Genome Project? Even if pharmaceutical companies tried to keep what they had found about human genetics secret, it would eventually come out for public use. However, this way, the company can ensure that they are the only one to be able to use the knowledge they have found without licensing their patent (which they are under no obligation to do). We shouldn't forget just how long 17 or 29 years is in terms of scientific advancement nowdays.
Speaking of software, do you honestly think that people can't innovate and make money in software without patenting their ideas? There have been a good variety of unpatented ideas that have spread throughout the industry. You're using some of them -- TCP/IP, mark-up languages, mouse driven interfaces, etc. 5 years is more than enough to own a lockstep on a product in the computer industry; 17 years is a ludicrous amount of time to hold on a particular algorithm or, worse, on a generic idea like one-click shopping.
Why the patenting of Genes is a Bad Idea (Score:2)
Once something has been invented, and proven to be done, it cannot be un-invanted - that is not that nature of inventions. Patenting of genes and processing thereof will spurn innovation, but will they really be controlled by this absurd notion of the Patent?
What I was hoping for: (Score:5)
Today, the USPTO announced new guidelines for the genetic qualifications of new application hirings. Under the new guidelines, DNA samples of all prospective USPTO-bureaucrat applicants will be submitted and examined to exclude all Neanderthals and proto-simians. Todd Dickinson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, was quoted as saying: "Internal audits of personnel revealed a disturbing trend: too many employees are of subhuman intelligence. We hope these new guidelines will turn around our beleaguered agency."
I can dream, can't I?
i just don't get it (Score:1)
\begin{weak analogy}
What if I were to find a new species. This species exists naturally in the world. Can I patent it? What does this even mean? Is that species not allowed to reproduce without the companies permission? Is no one else allowed to use the species without the companies permission?
It seems to me that this is like the patenting of genes. It makes no sense either.
\end{weak analogy}
Can anyone help me here?
Hmm (Score:1)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
gene patents threaten us all (Score:2)
Wether you believe in God or evolution, it seems obvious to me that patents should not be allowed for something which already exists. It's the ultimate "prior art". Build a gene from scratch, and maybe you'll have a case, but until then, I think it is clear that these patents should be opposed at all cost
They're trying to copyleft the darn thing (Score:1)
More disturbing, though, the private entity is using the public database to double check it's work, giving it a double head start. The private group has filed thousands upon thousands of patent applications. This leads to the essential question: If our DNA is patented, is human reproduction patent infringement?
plus ca change (Score:2)
But seriously, this measure isn't really enough. It's beyond me how you can patent DNA at all, but all this article means is that the PTO will not allow researchers to patent every single sequence they map in case it might coincidentally be important; they will have to prove that they can "do something" with it. I can understand patenting drugs or medical procedures BASED on these discoveries, but patenting the genes themselves is a lot like patenting algorithms; patenting the "laws of nature", which are discoveries, not inventions, and which confer unnatural monopolies that restrain the whole of human knowledge.
Biotech industries depend heavily on an unhealthy confluence of universities and corporate R&D, and this is just the most patently [sic] ridiculous extreme. The government has no cause sanctioning it. Progress [in the best 19th century sense] suffers from the relationship, and this cuts against the original purpose of patents.
Basic Science = open source (Score:1)
The second objection I have to this is much stronger. Basic scientific research can only evolve if it occurs in an open source environment, where discoveries are shared almost as soon as they are made. This happens necessarily in university environments, and is the primary reason for the research conferences that scientists are always running around to attend. We publish, we share data, we examine each other's grants, and we share reagents. Our work is validated when--and only when--someone else replicates it. Lewis Thomas made a very powerful argument for this in one of his arguments: we can only evolve if we share with each other. Although I'm not a CS person, my feeling is that open source software operates the same way.
In the field of life sciences--which is really a very young science--the sequencing of the human genome is a giant step, and will represent a gigantic change in every subset of the field. But here comes Ventner's company, announcing that they plan to finish the sequence before the NIH group (and what
I have no problem with someone patenting a novel process, like PCR, because that's the way biotech needs to work, and that's how patents were meant to be used. But with
Re:plus ca change (Score:1)
Isn't this a dirivative from a 70's movie about the Russians flying into the midwest and taking over the center of America? the origonal (I think it was the original) was a bumper sticker that said, "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hands." Just wondering if there's a parallel.
-------
CAIMLAS
LOL, that whacky patent office (Score:1)
No, they should not do this and in the case of DNA, that "first use" issue is definately against the "discoverer" since the person with the DNA is already using it.
But what the hell, the patent examiners don't pay attention to any of the other rules for granting patents, so it is another case that has to be needlessly settled in court.
Re:Ridiculous but may have merit (Score:1)
comments (Score:1)
Re:Patent what we're made up of?... (Score:1)
Obtuse (Score:1)
There seems to be a real focus on procedural correctness without much thought to the actual issue.
Re:the nutty view of it all (Score:1)
So as far as I understood what she said, that is exactly what they are doing. Hopefully, it'll never hold up in court. After all, the legal system has proven itself to be a sagacious interpreter of high-tech law.
the nutty view of it all (Score:5)
Well, they won't be patening the gene itself, however the process by which it is created.
You can't patent a finger, but you can patent a process that will create fingers.
Much like IBM's patents on copper chips. They patented their process, which at the time, was the only process, of producing copper chips. They couldn't patent the use of copper in chips, that would be absurd. Thus people frantically started trying to create copper chips in altered ways.
But heres a thought: Imagine the lawsuits
Man sues company for stealing his arm.
*grin*
id say, "prior art" heh (Score:2)
prior art? (Score:3)
The idea of "prior art" in this case may be a little different to what we are used to seeing. True, our genetic structures do "already exist", but the subject of the patent may actually claim something else, such as a method for isolating a gene, modifying it, identifying it, adding it to an organism to produce a certain outcome, and so on.
OF COURSE, the ethical considerations of patenting a genetic sequence are a completely different matter!
Gene patenting (Score:2)
Genetic Assholes R Us patent's the genes for black hair and blue eyes.
You/your wife gets pregnant with a kid having those genes, can they make you give the genes up?
No.. not with out taking your kid, every cell in both parents bodies (and some of the grandparents too). Is this feasable? NO. What is feasible is some moron saying I want a kid that looks just like "blah blah blah" they do it and yay it works. Does it mean anything not really.. just there is some kid running around that is almost identical to "blah blah blah".
The worst parts hurt will be if company x patents a gene and company y needs to use it for cancer research and cant without massive fees, etc. Then company x makes the new cancer treatment and gets all the money/credit when company did all hte legwork pointing to that gene.
Sometimes I go to work or look at
My genes (Score:1)
This article isn't quite about patenting genes (Score:2)
Now, imagine that I spend a few months compiling a whole bunch of useful regexps. I think I'd be within my rights to want to profit from all that work. Now, I can't patent a regexp, because in most cases it falls under obviousness. However, DNA tags are a lot less obvious, and therefore require significant effort to find and construct. Therefore, some companies claim they should be able to patent the ones they discover so that they can make money selling reagents to biologists.
ESTs, to the best of my knowledge, cannot be considered genes. They may code for a few amino acids, but as far as I know none of them codes anything near a complete enzyme.
Also, in response to the "they'll patent the cure for Alzheimer's" and "they'll patent the diabetes gene" worries: these are multifactorial diseases. It's not just one gene at the heart of them. Furthermore, it's not just one mutation causing all the cases. There are both genetic and environmental triggering factors.
Now, it's certainly true that a company might get a patent on a given kind of gene therapy or a "healing" DNA sequence that they've constructed. IMHO, this is fair. Such a sequence would be essentially equivalent to a drug, and anyone who figures out a cure for a disease deserves some profit.
Nobody is going to patent your genes and then sue you for infringement-through-living. Or rather, they might do that, but there's no way a court will even grant them the preliminary injunction, let alone damages. (If you are a genetically-engineered perfect child using "upgraded" genes that the company invented, *then* you might be in trouble.) As far as medical therapies go, gene patents are probably going to just perpetuate the system of drug patents.
Finally, a semi-offtopic response to someone who said that the genome is open-source but encrypted: I don't think it's encrypted at all. God's just not very good at commenting his code.
Alik
How can a gene patent hold in court? (Score:3)
Genes are a natural resource. They are a natural resource for building life. Humans did not invent them, so how can a human have a right to patent it?
Is a company going to actually claim they INVENTED a gene? Are they going to charge parents to have kids because they are violating this companies patent?
The patent laws in this country need to be rewritten entirely if they can get away with this.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
Re:the nutty view of it all (Score:2)
Well, absurd or not, you can patent the idea of storing customer information on a server so that customers don't have to re-enter it, or the idea of using a different alphabet to allow for easier character recognition. You can patent the idea of doing electronic searches by entering a question. You can patent obvious techniques (XOR mouse pointer, overlapping windows in a GUI), mathematical theorems (RSA, DH). Regardless of supposed rules about prior art, you can patent something that's been in use for years. You can even get patents that violate the laws of physics, like perpetual motion machines, or are simply mathematically impossible, like compression algorithms that can compress all data down to 1 bit.
It seems that anything goes in the US patent system. While the DNA patent issue isn't as bad as patenting existing genes, from what I've seen, I don't see why existing genes couldn't be patented. It's basically a system without rules. If the patent office decides that genes can't be patented, someone will just shuffle some wording around to be able to do it.
HUGO (Score:1)
The outcry worked -- leaders in Papua New Guinea were eventually awarded some kind of settlement -- but in many cases this kind of genetic exploitation goes unfettered. It's bad enough the way the western world takes economic advantage of small, relatively defenseless populations; but to patent and profit from their sole inalienable possession -- their bloodline -- is unconscionable.
I haven't kept up with HUGO's track record very closely since then -- I had heard that they made some improvements in their policies -- but I wonder if other /. readers have knowledge or semi-informed opinions on the matter?
Note: I don't oppose the collection of various genetic samples for research purposes, or even the idea behind HUGO -- it's a matter of the benefit being primarily to the culture that provided the genes and to the advancement of science in general, rather than the economic benefit of a few unethical corporations.
this article is begging for a troll (Score:1)
--
No such thing as "too much"? (Score:1)
First, Harley patented the sound of their motorcycles. I laughed when I heard that - I mused that that would never hold up.. but it did.
The thought of private companies holding patents in genetic science scares the shit out of me. Talk about big brother.
But the thought of the US government having control over genetics research and policies scares me even more. Especially since the US can't and shouldn't dictate what the rest of the world does, but will most likely try to.
I guess my response is that forbidden fruit doesn't stay forbidden very long. What is sacred to one man may not be to another. I believe it is only a matter of time before all moral concerns regarding genetic engineering, unresolved and ultimately unsolvable as they are, are simply bypassed. That scares me too.
But so did Y2K, and we're still here.
-John
Re:This is not a black and white issue, nothing is (Score:1)
Now the corporations that funded their work (If that was the case) ... they may have been in it for the profit. How 'bout we give all the Corporate Welfare money to "Open Source" people so the discoveries benefit all people and not just the priveledged elite.
When someone uses the argument "Innovation won't happen without compensation" has a poor view of the human race. We're better than that
Re:How can a gene patent hold in court? (Score:2)
Remeber, without a patent or when a patent expires, other companies can manufacture a copy of the drug and sell it to the public at a very low cost since they are only woried about making a temporary profit, not recouping their R&D expenses. If drug companies where not granted the temporary monopoly on being the only ones able to sell the drug for a specific period of time, they would never be able to recoup their R&D costs, and research into new life-saving drugs would cease. Is this really what you are advocating?
Somewhat inaccurate.. (Score:1)
For all the complaining about stupid kneejerk bullshit in other parts of America and the media, we sure do a lot of it here. Bleh.
Re:This is not a black and white issue, nothing is (Score:1)
1) If Company X sequences the genes that cause Alzheimer's. Even if they can't patent it, they're under no obligation to share that information. This give's them a headstart in developing a treatment. If another company wants to develop a treatment, let them spend their own money, or wait for the HGP.
2) Assuming they develop a cure, the cure is still patentable, just like conventional medications, but still allows other companies to develop alternate treatments.
this is not a sig.
Important ramifications (Score:2)
If intellectual property protection is not given to those who find new genes, then HUGE amounts of money will not be spent investigating the potential of existing human genes to cure existing pathologies. Think about that for a second. This could keep some company from curing hemophilia, or dystonia, or schizophrenia, all of which have known contributions from at least one gene. The research for this work is being driven by industry. Without intellectual property protection, it would cease to exist. The companies exist to profit, not to make you feel better. There are not enough truly altruistic sources of research funding to make this work otherwise as things sit today.
To me that is the real issue. Do we give companies a reason to exploit the genome for potential human benefit or not ?
Patent uses not discoveries (Score:1)
Normaly you patent somthing for a particular use. Genetic patents are, effectivly speaking [accessexcellence.com], on the genes themselves rather than a use to which a gene is put. When Celera hoped to get a few thousand patents by completing the Human Genome Project before the various government agencies involved it wasn't saying "we'll use this gene we discovered to cure alzheimers and patent the cure" they just said "we'll patent a bunch of genes and charge those people who want to use them".
You should be able to patent a process to build a log cabin. You shoudn't be able to discover a pine tree and patent 'cutting down a pine tree with a chainsaw'.
There should be enough money in use patents to satisfy corporate interests. And if a company can't make money off of use patents, then they don't deserve to make moeny.
A national dilemma, and some thoughts (Score:1)
Losec's patent is about to run out, which presents the (public) health insuracne with this delicate problem:
a) Losec sales generate a lot of tax money, used for example on health insurance.
b) 'Cloned' drugs are a lot cheaper, making the same tax money last longer.
So the same government tries to:
a) Support Astra fighting 'drug-piracy' and promoting the original
b) Persuade doctors to perscribe clones instead of the original to save money.
Go figure...
Now I have some friends doing medical research. They all agree: Patents are what keeps the medical research going. There are many years of research and testing behind a succesful drug. And there are many failed projects for every successful one too.
It would be very nice with an "open source medical research movement" instead of the greedy corporate approach, but how many of you would like to beta test an aids vaccine? Or experiment with alzheimer drugs on your grandmother?
Genome/Medical patents are ethically tricky.
Software patents are legally tricky.
Please do not confuse the two!
I've secured a patent for brown eyes... (Score:1)
What? The application *process*!? NOT the gene! (Score:1)
Think twice; type once.
Patents cover processes that can be expressed as instructions. If someone says a device is patented this actually means the process of creating that device is patented.
Think of this as patenting a function.
- Certain genes and
- a target genetic sequence
are the inputs. You can't patent the inputs: patent law covers the *way* you bring them together. For Example: (cat flames>/dev/null)If I take the RTFM gene from Linus Torvalds, and I point out the spot where I can splice the gene into anyone's DNA then I *may* be able to patent the process of making you all RTFM. I would NOT have a patent on your genes (before or after you get a clue) or the RTFM gene sequence itself.Need the Encouragement (Score:1)
I dont care (Score:1)
If they find a cure for crohn's disease from this, Ill kiss all of their collective asses
Copyleft the human genome! (Score:5)
As RMS and others have so often said, the purpose of the patent system is to foster innovation, not to make inventors/discoverers rich. If one gene causes Alzheimer's, how do you claim a patent on that knowledge will induce others to find "alternate" ways of treating it? More importantly, why should it? It's like someone patenting the administration of drugs in pill form to a sick patient. What am I supposed to do if I don't have any pills, stick some leeches on my head and hope my migraine goes away? (Migraines make you want to roll over and die...)
The idiocy, greed, and outright contempt for human decency and welfare disgusts me more than my acid keyboard can relate.
Anyway, it might not be a bad idea to take active steps towards ensuring that something like this cannot happen. Look at the GPL. It guarantees that no rights are taken away from the user by the software it accompanies. So should we, the "users" of our own bodies (and therefore genes) not be denied any rights to them, especially not if such knowledge can raise the quality of life for all people on earth! I say the human genome should be copylefted.
Re:Prior Art? (Score:1)
This is one of the better examples of the dangers of market capitalism: not all realms of human endeavour, action and conception are best subjected to the "invisible hand of the market," and it is the market which is driving this bus.
Re:the nutty view of it all (Score:4)
The process of creating a gene is included in the patent(s) for PCR technology, and things like that. The gene patents are (I believe) on uses of a gene. So an antifreeze gene from a fish gets patented as a way to make crops resistant to frost.
In other words, the technology to reproduce and manipulate genes is already patented and has been for some time. This technology is not gene specific, so one wouldn't even file an extension to that original patent as new genes are discovered. What individual genes get patented for is their particular use.
One case I could imagine where I would be wrong would be for DNA primers for PCR.
What PCR does, is it takes a DNA sample, and it unzips the DNA, and special sequences of DNA attach to the part of the DNA you want, and the gene gets copied, unzipped, and copied again. Most gene cloning works like that. I imagine one could patent that primer, which is a small chunk of DNA, but I haven't heard of anyone doing so.
Re:Important ramifications (Score:1)
The patents should be restricted to specific uses of a particular sequence and not a blanket patent covering all uses of a sequence to be discovered in the future.
For an analogy as to why this last point is very important, imagine a post-apocalyptic world with the loss of all technology. Scientists have discovered how to read old hard drives that survived the apocalypse. They race against competing companies to decode the 1's and 0's they find on the drives, patenting various dll's, apps, preference files etc. as they decode them. Eventually they have collectively recreated Windows 95(insert favorite/most hated operating system here) but no one can use it because of patent restrictions.
Re:Important ramifications (Score:1)
The cost associated with getting FDA approval of a pharmaceutical based on a gene patent is ~100-300 million dollars as you have to pass phase 1,2 and 3 clinical trial to get approval to market your product from the FDA. This takes huge investment in future payoff to even attempt it. Therefore you need to have patent protection of about 20 years to make your investment worthwile.
I support the patenting of DNA sequences where there is medical benefit to the public from the patent. Provided the patent must specify the use of the sequence for benefit and not cover anything more than is specifically laid out in the claims.
University researchers generally do not care about bringing the benefits fo their discoveries to the public, they are trying to advance knowlege about the science and gain brownie points by publishing papers disclosing new ideas in their fields. It is companies that convert those ideas into products (treatments for diseases). So don't wait for universities to find treatments for every disease.
There are some real benefits to humans in allowing companies to patent DNA sequences. We just have to stop companies from being able to patent anything for any future purpose.
DNA Alogrythum (Score:1)
- I dont know how or if alogrythum is a correct spelling and I dont care
Patenting Utility, Not a Gene (Score:2)
My understanding of the new regulations is that DNA sequences can be part of a patented process only if the process has significant usefulness. So, if I clone a novel gene which may do something interesting or may not, I can't write a patent application because I can't say that anything that I might do with this has significant usefulness. At least, I can't describe any kind of process (aside from more research) that I know will be of use. However, if I clone a disease that predisposes people to Alzheimer's disease, I might patent that as part of a diagnostic test for determining whether someone is likely to get Alzheimer's. I'm not sure how far this is allowed to extend to other applications one might use the DNA sequence of an Alzheimer's gene for (and I'm not sure the PTO has any idea either, until lawsuits are brought and settled over the matter).
In any event, it sounds like the right idea: reward people for substantive work towards something really useful, while keeping people from getting rich simply because they were the first ones to explicitly describe something that they had no clue how to use. But the devil is in the details, as they say, so we may well see that it is still all messed up. Especially since "substantive" is such a subjective term.
Gene Genie (Score:1)
Re:It's like holding your kids hostage! (Score:2)
Yes, what I was indirectly saying in the response was that perhaps it is bad that the company patents the stuff, but worse if the company withholds stuff to the public. There's no reason they can't recoup their investment by simply being the first to develop whatever inventions/products/breakthroughs naturally come out of this new information.
Say for instance if some company develops out of this a product which allows humans to live forever, then sure that company should be able to patent that product.
However if this "immortality" pill is not invented in our lifetime because "Celera" is keeping the information as proprietary Corporate Trade Secrets, then that, my friend, is nothing less than a CRIME against humanity!
It's like holding your kids hostage! (Score:4)
Re:My genes (Score:2)
There is one case that was decided a few years back where a medical institution took a blood sample from a patient, found a useful medical application for either his DNA (or some blood component) and filed for a patent.
(It's been a while so I can't recall the exact details.) In any case, the courts found in favor of the medical institution.
Be careful. If you decide to clone yourself you may have to pay someone royalties.
Gene patent reqs. (Score:2)
Patent what we're made up of?... (Score:2)
God no; someone get my lawyer on the phone...
Not necessarily bad... (Score:2)
That said, I think that the objections of many slashdotters is not that patents are necessarily an evil concept, but rather that a) the patent system in the US is deeply flawed, and b) much of that flaw revolves around patents being much too easy to obtain. Patents should allow for a reasonable rate of return for an actual innovation. After all, it is in all of our best interests to encourage companies to use their financial resources to fund products and services that we find beneficial.
Let's say that there is a cure for a leukemia that can be developed through the use of genetic technology, but the cure will take several years and around a billion dollars to develop, owing both to the complexity of the problem and the scope and duration of clinical trials required to verify that the treatment will not, while solving one problem, create another one that may be even worse. Let's also say that said hypothetical treatment comes in the form of a small, easily reproducible pill. Fine. Now, ask yourself, what company on earth is going to undertake that sort of investment if that have no guarantee that some generic drug maker won't simply take their product, do a little chemical exploration, and pop out a duplicate product at one tenth the price long before the original developer has had even the slightest chance of making back their investment? Think of it this way: would you keep going to work if they stopped paying you? Hey, maybe you enjoy your job, but eventually you're going to notice that your fridge is empty, the house is cold and dark, and the toilets won't flush.
It may offend our delicate sensibilities that a child may only be cured of a terrible disease if they, their guardians, or the relevant insurance company can afford the price charged by the developer of the needed drug, but really, this is the way the universe works. When was the last time you accused a farmer of being a heartless f***ing bast**d because he actually has the nerve to charge you for the food you need to stay alive?
But I have digressed slightly from the point. The example above is what I would consider to be a suitable reason to allow for a patent, or some form of intellectual property protection, for the simple reason that unless it is provided, that company will not even try to develop that lifesaving drug, and our hypothetical patient is going to be fertilizing the daffodils before too long. But contrast the above example to something like simply uncovering a gene in our DNA. Obviously, to my eye, the two represent vastly different levels of effort and investment, with the former far outweighing the latter. Rewarding them even close to equally is not a rational approach. So, what we need is perhaps a more flexible system that tailors the patents more closely to the actual needs of the company, product, and consumer. Under this sort of system, the Amazon 1-Click patent might be granted, but it would only have a duration of maybe a month.
Solutions? Perhaps a system whereby a company applying for a patent must submit a line by line of development costs, with the understanding that the patent protection will evaporate the moment the revenues on the product in question reach payback plus a suitable percentage return above costs. What if a company should try to cheat by inflating R&D costs? Perhaps some sort of peer review system. If company X claims manpower and resource costs that exceed those required to build the pyramids, maybe a litle red flag should go up and some experts brought in to look at the problem. It will be tricky at first, but eventually the patent office should have a reasonable idea of the actual development costs faced by companies in different sectors of the economy. The advances in Net technology may allow this sort of thing to be feasible. Anyway, it's just one thought among many...
Ultimately, down the line I think that the Internet and the data revolution might provide the better third way that has always been impossible. Ultimately, this is all about fredom of choice, and personally I don't mind paying a bit more for something if I understand that there are further benefits accruing to me for doing so. By purchasing medications, for example, from the company that developed them rather than a generic manufacturer, my support of the innovator rather than imitator all but ensures that the developer will thrive and continue to develop new and useful treatments that may just save my life down the road. To that end, the ability of the Net to help me gather and organize my choices about which company to deal with will only increase in the future, and in the end that may be the best way. However, there is still a long way to go in that respect, so until then maybe e-mail some presidential candidates and demand that they look at the patent system. These people do theoretically work for you, ya know?
Peace.