Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Biotech Science

Open Source Life? 418

Posted by michael from the just-slightly-ahead-of-its-time dept.
JimCricket writes "What happens when a bio-cracker unleashes a plant virus on all the wheat in North America, and the genetic code to 'Wheat 2.0' is closed-source, patented code owned by a corporation? Should life be Open Source? Download Aborted takes a look at this issue."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source Life? More

Open Source Life?

Comments Filter:
  • Sounds a bit like the plot of White Death [amazon.com]. In this book, the heroes must stop a megaconglomerate from seeding the seas with genetically engineered fish that will overrun all the native populations and then die, so the conglomerate can corner the market with their GMO farm-raised fish. Anyone wanting to raise fish will need to buy stock from them. Of course, the hero foils their plot.

    Sounds strange, outlandish, fantasy... not really.

    In the real world, the article mentions the Monsanto Case [shroomery.org] against Percy Schmeiser. Their seed ended up on his land through no fault of his, yet they claim they have a right to be paid license fees or to force him to spend his time and money removing corn derived from their migrating seed.

    It's not just scary that the courts will side with them on this and let them steamroll over innocent parties, but that they cannot control the spread of their lab-grown genes. One of the "fictional" premises of White Death is that even without an evil plot, a GMO could escape its farm environment and reproduce in the wild, gradually replacing the formerly dominant species on a genetic level. The problem is that this GMO has defects and liabilities that are unknown, and while it might last long enough to marginalize the genes of the wild organism it's replacing, something could come along and wipe out the newly dominant GMO en masse, leaving stocks of that animal or plant decimated worldwide.

    Frightening.

    • Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea (Score:5, Funny)

      by skiflyer ( 716312 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:35PM (#9498440)
      Didn't you see mimic? The won't die because you engineered them to, they'll get bigger and bigger and then start killing humans. Just like the wheat obviouslly would.
    • GMO could escape its farm environment and reproduce in the wild, gradually replacing the formerly dominant species on a genetic level.

      Ye gods! It's xbill all over again!
    • that's canola not corn in the monsanto case

    • Percy Schmeiser in his own words (Score:5, Informative)

      by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:40PM (#9498515)
      Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto

      By Percy Schmeiser

      I've been farming since 1947 when I took over from my father. My wife and I are known on the Prairies as seed developers in canola and as seed savers. Hundreds of thousands of farmers save their seed from year to year.

      I was also a member of the provincial legislature. I was on many agricultural committees, both on the provincial level and representing the province on the federal level. I was mayor of my community and a councillor for over 25 years. So, all my life I've worked for the betterment of farmers and rules, laws and regulations that would benefit them and make their farming operations viable.

      The whole issue of GMOs can be divided into three main categories: the first category is the issue of the property rights of farmers versus the intellectual property rights of multinationals like Monsanto. The second issue is the health and danger to our food with the introduction of GMOs. The third issue is the environment.

      Over this last year there have been other very important issues. The GM wheat issue, and what I think is one of the worst things: the pharmaceutical issue of GM plants producing prescription-type drugs, which I'll touch on later. I want to concentrate on the issue I'm involved with: Property rights of farmers vs. the intellectual property rights of multinationals.

      In August 1998 I received a lawsuit document from Monsanto. Up to that time I never had anything to do with Monsanto's GM canola. I'd never bought their seed or gone to a Monsanto meeting. I didn't even know a Monsanto rep.

      There were a number of items in the lawsuit. First of all, they said I had somehow acquired Monsanto's GM canola seed without a licence, planted it, grew it and therefore infringed on their patent. They went on to say that it was 80 or 90 percent contamination that I had in a roadside ditch and so on.

      When we were sued my wife and I immediately realized that 50 years of research and development on our pure canola seed that was suitable and adaptable to certain conditions on the Prairies, climatic and soil conditions and especially diseases that we had in canola, could now be contaminated. We said to Monsanto at the time, "Look, if you have any of your GMOs in our pure canola seed you are liable for the destruction of our property and our pure seed." So, we stood up to them.

      I think at that time there were two main issues. We lost 50 years of research and development and we felt that if farmers ever lose the right to use their own seed the future development of new seeds and plants suitable to their local climatic and soil conditions would be stopped. Those are the two main reasons we stood up to Monsanto.

      It took two years of pre-trial and in those two years Monsanto withdrew all allegations that I had ever obtained seed illegally. They even went so far as to admit the allegations were false.

      But, they still found that the fact that they had found some of Monsanto's GM canola plants in the ditch along my field, not even in the field, meant I violated the patent. So, it became a patent infringement case. I had no choice where it would be heard. Patent laws are federal, so it was before the federal court of Canada immediately, with one judge. It went to trial in June 2000 and lasted two and a half weeks.

      That ruling is what brought my case to international attention. These are some of the main points:

      1. It does not matter how Monsanto's GM canola or soybeans or any GM plant gets into a farmer's field. The judge went on to specify how this could happen: cross-pollination and direct seed movement. Believe me that's a primary cause - wind, birds and bees, because we have a lot of wind on the prairies.
      The judge said it doesn't matter how it gets into a farmer's field, destroying or contaminating your crop, it all becomes Monsanto's property. You no longer own your crop. That's what startled people all over the world; how an organic or conventional farmer can lose a crop and

      • Re:Percy Schmeiser in his own words (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mal3 ( 59208 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:12PM (#9498923)
        Makes me wonder. If someone wrote a virus, that also happened to have a piece of patented code in it, say IBM's. Could IBM then sue everyone who was infected?

      • yeah, okay, i was feeling pretty sympathetic, giving this guy the benefit of the doubt until:

        Another clause: You're not allowed to show this letter to anyone and you're not allowed to tell anyone that you've received this letter from Monsanto or what Monsanto has done to you. So, a total suppression of farmers rights, freedom of speech and expression. (about the extortion letters)

        yeah, this might be something written in the letter but everyone with two brains to rub together knows that extortion is ill

      • +1 Scary (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ericspinder ( 146776 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:29PM (#9499158) Journal
        All he needs is a flashlight and a campfire.

        What he doesn't say is something that I found in following the link canadians.org [canadians.org] to the information page on this issue [canadians.org], there you can find a link to the Judgement from May 21 [umontreal.ca], it found that:

        Tests of their 1998 canola crop revealed that 95-98 per cent was Roundup Ready Canola
        Sounds to me that they found it in a little more than that ditch as he claims. It's still an interesting read, and does raise some good questions. Like "who owns life"

        • Re:+1 Scary (Score:5, Informative)

          by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer@alum. m i t.edu> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @04:15PM (#9499792) Homepage

          Yes, but there's more to it than this. First, Schmeiser took seed from the contaminated crop and used it to plant the subsequent year's crop. It is the second year's crop that was 95-98% percent Roundup resistant. A farmer is entitled to use his own seed. It was not his fault that Monsanto's seed contaminated his field.

          Second, Schmeiser didn't use Roundup on his crop. He therefore derived no benefit from the fact that his crop was Roundup resistant. This is undisputed. It is why the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the award of damages and legal fees to Monsanto in spite of its ruling that Schmeiser infringed Monsanto's patent. This is explicit in the court's ruling. You can read Supreme Court of Canada decisions here [umontreal.ca].

          Schmeiser showed that the percentage of Roundup resistant crop in his first crop was gradient in exactly the way that would be expected if it was contaminated by seed from a passing truck or other farmer's field. That is, it was highest near the road and fell off with distance.

      • Re:Percy Schmeiser in his own words (Score:5, Informative)

        by Karl Cocknozzle ( 514413 ) <kcocknozzle&hotmail,com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:31PM (#9499185) Homepage
        These detectives go into any fields they choose to without permission and steal seeds or plants to check on them. If a farmer catches them trespassing they will laugh at the farmer and make threats.

        Are these men armed? I know private citizens are not allowed to have handguns in Canada, but does that apply to ex-cops? Because I'm thinking, if they're armed, on your property illegally and threatening you, presumably you have some right to defend yourself and your land. Perhaps John Q. Farmer should shoot a couple of these "detectives" while they're comitting this burglary. Don't all farmers keep shotguns? I don't know what self-defense laws exist in Canada, but I imagine that a few of these "detectives" turning up in the morgue full of buckshot would create problems for the Monsanto recruiting effort. Not that a few dead bodies ever slowed down a multi-billion dollar behemoth before, but you have to start somewhere.

        Or you could call the cops and request that they remove some trespassers, if you're not the violent type. Your call, really.

        • Re:Percy Schmeiser in his own words (Score:5, Funny)

          by John Courtland ( 585609 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:55PM (#9499537)
          I'm more surprised someone hasn't gone to Monsanto HQ and blown away the board of directors. Nothing stops a problem like a bullet.
        • You have the right to defend your property, but if they run away when you show up with your gun, you can't shoot them. You also can't shoot first if they're just stealing seeds. There has to be a threat to your life to justify shooting somebody.

        • It is nearly impossible for a private citizen to obtain a handgun permit in Canada other than for target shooting or collecting, but long guns are permitted. As of a few years ago, you need a federal firearms permit to possess long guns. It isn't too hard to get. I have one, and three rifles. For defense in a rural situation a handgun wouldn't be that great anyhow since even if you know what you are doing they aren't accurate at any distance. For dealing with trespassers a shotgun loaded with buckshot or s

      • I'm not taking sides, but there is definitely more than one side to this story.

        This [biotech-info.net] is the reply. Basically, they alledge that Percy stole the crop and planted it.

      • If they can't find a farmer at home and they don't know his mailing address, they can go to the local municipality and get the location of his land. They will then use a small airplane or helicopter and drop a Monsanto Roundup herbicide spray bomb on the field. It covers about 30 feet in diameter, in the centre of a canola or soybean field.

        About 12 days after Roundup has time to activate, they'll fly back. If the crop, which was hit by the spray, has died they'll know the farmer has not been using Monsan

    • Didn't you see mimic? The won't die because you engineered them to, they'll get bigger and bigger and then start killing humans. Just like the wheat obviouslly would.

      Murderous, rampaging plant life [imdb.com] is generally best combatted with the strains of "Puberty Love".

    • Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea (Score:5, Informative)

      by ToLu the Happy Furby ( 63586 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:46PM (#9498585)
      Their seed ended up on his land through no fault of his, yet they claim they have a right to be paid license fees or to force him to spend his time and money removing corn derived from their migrating seed.

      This version of events was determined to be false by the trial court, and that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court [umontreal.ca]. Instead they found that he had saved seed that he knew was Monsanto-patented, (genetically modified to resist Roundup herbicide) and planted it without paying them a license fee.

      No damages were assessed, however, because the court found that he did not accrue any extra profit as a result of using the genetically modified canola seed as opposed to regular canola. The reason being that he didn't take advantage of the invention because he didn't use Roundup and therefore had no way of making extra profit based on the patented bits.

      (Also, for what it's worth, the case concerned canola, not corn.)

      Basically, the only way you can view the Schmeiser decision as unfairly pro-Monsanto is if you believe that genetic modifications should be inherently unpatentable. (Which is not necessarily a silly position--I'm not sure I don't think that.)

      Or if you are ignorant of the true facts of the case.

      • Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:06PM (#9498845) Homepage
        He saved the seed from his own fields. How was he supposed to seperate out the Roundup-ready contaminated stuff?
      • Not exactly. The court found that some of the seeds he was saving and planting (not at all an odd or unnatural activity for the farmer) contained monsanto's genes. They also decided that he "ought to have known" that the genes were in his saved seed. They did not rule that he did know and deliberately concealed it nor did they rule that he was fraudulately using it.

        So his version of events, knowing the supreme court's decision does not fall. I would argue that the points he makes about cross-pollinatio
      • The problem with that, and what Mr. Schmeiser has discussed all along, is twofold.
        1. He had practiced Seed Saving [seedsave.org] for over 50 years
        2. He never aquired Monsanto seeds, rather his crop was naturally populated with the GM seeds

        What your comment suggests is that this man should incur an extra expense every year of testing the seeds for cross polination, rather than go about farming as he always has.

        How would you like to be forced by a Supreme Court ruling to pay to test the grass in your front yard because

    • Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DrMrLordX ( 559371 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:58PM (#9498741)
      I'll agree that there needs to be legal protection for non-GMO farmers who have crops that are cross-polinated by GMOs. This would be difficult to accomplish given the complications involved with proving that only cross-polination actually occurred(and that the victim non-GMO farmer wasn't actually pirating patented seeds). From a legal standpoint, it would be easiest to simply forbid the patenting of any organism(GMO or otherwise) which reproduces freely and sexually. In other words, this would allow firms to patent sterile or asexual organisms along with parts of organisms(vat-grown tissues, organs, etc).

      As far as that Monsanto case goes, I find it rather unfortunate that the court's decision does not appear to be based on how the Roundup Ready canola plants got onto Schmeiser's property in the first place. That should have been the primary concern of the court.

      Also, in regards to the rampant spread of GMOs into a wild environment, keep in mind that non-native species have been spreading for years, causing shifts in ecosystems all across the globe. Rats alone have caused enormous damage. We've also unleashed a few non-GMO hybrids, such as those lovely Africanized "killer" bees. Escaped GMOs will just add to the stew of organisms invading ecosystems worldwide, and I suspect that when they make their appearance on the scene, they'll have some stiff competition. If GMOs do have defects or liabilities(unknown or otherwse), they will very likely play a big role in their ability to spread. Never underestimate the ability of bacteria, viruses, parasites, etc to adapt to new prey in the wild. It won't take bio-crackers to engineer GMO-killing plagues. They'll emerge on their own.

      A scenario akin to that which you mentioned in White Death could potentially occur using techniques more primitive than genetic engineering. Again, just take a look at Africanized bees.

    • Stampede at the Patent Office (Score:5, Funny)

      by code_monkey_steve ( 651206 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:58PM (#9498750)
      Their seed ended up on his land through no fault of his, yet they claim they have a right to be paid license fees or to force him to spend his time and money removing corn derived from their migrating seed.
      So by this logic, I could patent my own DNA, and if I happened to get a woman pregnant (i.e. my "seed" ended up on her "land"), not only would I not have to pay child support, but I could sue her for licensing fees on the "product" (or else require her to "remove" it, at her own expense, but let's not go there).

      For that matter, grandchildren would then be considered "derivative works", giving an exponentially increasing revenue source.

      "They're not my kids, they're my IP portfolio."

      • not only would I not have to pay child support, but I could sue her for licensing fees on the "product" (or else require her to "remove" it, at her own expense, but let's not go there).
        Well, that all depends on if the "planting" was forced, (she didn't want your "seed") consentual (you both agreed to the "seeding") or unintentional (you were asleep when the "seeding" tool place.)

      • Mom & Dad (Score:3, Funny)

        by Aexia ( 517457 )
        They'll just claim prior art.

    • Innocent? Not quite... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:08PM (#9498858)
      link [spiked-online.com]
      Judge Andrew MacKay refused to believe Schmeiser's initial assertion that so much transgenic canola pollen had drifted on to his field solely via wind and bees. During the trial, Schmeiser had already admitted 'experimenting' with Monsanto's Roundup Ready seed on his field. Herbicide-tolerant plants with a purity grade of 95 to 98 percent in relation to the patent-protected characteristic had been found in large areas of Schmeiser's canola cultivation area. Various experts testified in court that unintentional mixing via pollen flight from neighbouring fields could not have caused the discovery of this much Roundup Ready
      Numerous farmers and agricultural experts share this view, as did the judge, who pronounced: 'I have found that he [Schmeiser] seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain the plaintiffs' patented claims for genes and cells.'

      Now, personally, I'm of the belief that if Schmeiser arrived at his particular seed crop genetics through natural selection (which appears to be the case from my cursory research) then he should be allowed to make use of that crop HE developed naturally. But it appears that the law's viewpoint is that he knowingly developed "Roundup" proof crops to specifically use Monsanto's "Roundup" herbicide without paying them a license fee. That's definitely a violation of existing patent law.

    • The problem is that this GMO has defects and liabilities that are unknown,

      One that is known, is that it is homogenous. If the topic of the article is about someone engineering a virus, bacteria or pest that would wipe out a nation's entire food crop, then at least the first two are made massively easier by having genetically identical crops.

      Consider the Irish Potato famine. One blight that affected the few imported strains of potatoes on which the nation depended caused a famine. Few people in the mo

  • overwrite human dna? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...ultimately creating genetic viruses that override us and make us slaves to the system!

    • Re:overwrite human dna? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Won't happen to me!

      # chown root:root /dev/dna
      # chmod a-rwx /dev/dna

    • Re:overwrite human dna? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zoloto ( 586738 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:54PM (#9498693)
      Some people have moderated this funny but it's actually a bit insightful. If the genetic changes and DNA are the equivilant of "open source" or "open dna" (which is what life should be) then we'd be able to fix genetic problems introduced by pharmacutical companies' products. Hell, peer review would be a Godsend in that industry b/c without it the nightmare involved in figuring out what caused a problem in X person A) costs too much B) Takes WAY too much time in lab tests, blood tests etc.

      Were not very close to comparing what DNA a person has and saying, "Hey you'll be allergic to this drug" yet, but I for one can't wait for our open source dna overlords to realise keeping an open system is worth it.

  • This isnt a credible news source (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:29PM (#9498362) Homepage
    Its just ruminations on someones blog and should be treated as such.

    • Re:This isnt a credible news source (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:31PM (#9498395)
      you must be new here...

    • Dude... it's Slashdot. They really ought to just change it from "News For Nerds" to "Discussion by Nerds" because, anymore, the stories are abhoredly biased or from nonsense like this. The writeups are absolutely awful sometimes, to the point where they don't even reflect the actual article that's linked, and the jabs from the editors obviously scream "hello - we're so highly professional that our editors feel no qualms about injecting personal philosophy into writeups they won't even spellcheck!"

      It would

    • Its just ruminations on someones blog and should be treated as such.

      Just like Slashdot.

    • Its just ruminations on someones blog and should be treated as such.

      No, this is a real issue with companies like monsanto patenting life. The article mentions a real life case where a farmer lost rights to his own harvest because it was infected by monsanto pollen.

      Also practiced now: Farmers must agree not to germinate plants from seeds grown from their own harvest or they wont be able to buy the seeds. Basically you plant an apple tree and dont have a right to plant the apple seeds from that tree an
    • Truly you are fearless to disdain the power, factual correctness and influence of the blog, especially when it mentions that topic of mind warping importance to slashdot, patents. I vote Kevin Conway be our new overlord.
    • Yeah, and a retarded blog at that. It is high on sci fi FUD, low on reality (like most anti-genetic modification blogs). For one thing, in the event the above happened, the corporation WOULD share the data, rather than face liability. For another, NOT having the data to Wheat 1.0 would make it much more difficult to construct a virus in the first place. It isn't easy or quick to break down a genome, which may be necessary to manufacture a virus. It takes a lot of equipment, a lot of research and a lot

  • no wheat? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jqh1 ( 212455 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:30PM (#9498374) Homepage
    Aren't we all on low carb diets anyway?

  • In Bush's America...... (Score:5, Funny)

    by slomr2 ( 663204 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:30PM (#9498375)
    Another great win for corperate America!!!
    And don't forget the F.U.D. that will be spread about any opensource that does come out. How do you know that Wheat is safe to eat without Wheat 2.0 Update?

  • I officially LGPL myself (Score:5, Funny)

    by CharAznable ( 702598 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:30PM (#9498377)
    I officially put my own genetic code under the terms of the LGPL. You can redistribute me and my clones as you like, as long as they remain in the LGPL themselves. If I participate in the reproduction, all the better. You see, the reason I put it in the LGPL is that I am not picky as to who I "link my code" with ;)
    • So, do you support the LGPL? (Remember if they don't agree to the terms than they can't distribute or accept "code" under those terms.)

      The plus side is we can get the soon-to-be-unemployed SCO lawyers to help you with the derivitive works suits.

    • Re:I officially LGPL myself (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:42PM (#9498527)
      You do realize that you're effectively creating a race of genitic slaves among your offspring. What if one of your great grandchildren don't wish to be covered by the LGPL?

    • I officially put my own genetic code under the terms of the LGPL. You can redistribute me and my clones as you like...

      IIRC, the LGPL allows you to charge a modest fee for 'distribution costs'. How much are you going to be billing for the "Gentlemen's Interest" magazines necessary for extraction of your genetic code?

    • NO WARRANTY

      11. Because this genetic material is licensed free of charge, there is no warranty for the genetic material, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties provide the genetic material "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the g

    • Ha Ha Only Serious (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) *
      I officially put my own genetic code under the terms of the LGPL. You can redistribute me and my clones as you like...

      Funny post, but it brings up an interesting point. Biotech companies are patenting gene sequences all the time. What's to *stop* you, or me, or CowboyNeal from filing a patent for "A unique sequence of genetic material such that will produce a particular individual, to wit, me?"

      Do the biotech companies know the exact sequence of GTCA's in the genes they patent? If not, then I don't see

  • I'm not terribly religious... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArmenTanzarian ( 210418 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:31PM (#9498381) Homepage Journal
    but I resent the comparison of Gates and God. Despite 99.9% of the field of science being reverse engineering.

    At least it's not copy protected, well except for the atom.

  • GPL? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bobdoer ( 727516 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:31PM (#9498386) Homepage Journal
    So, can I release my genes under the GPL? Or will I have to find a different license?

    • Re:GPL? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Analogy Man ( 601298 )
      So, can I release my genes under the GPL? Or will I have to find a different license?

      To release your genes beyond their current immediate proximity of your keyboard you will need to crawl out of your basement, take a shower, put on a clean shirt, comb your hair...initiate License request

      "Hey baby, what's your sign?"

      Repeat until license request is accepted...oh nevermind

    • So, can I release my genes under the GPL? Or will I have to find a different license?

      Releasing your genes under the GPL would mean that everyone can take them, use them,modify them and give the modified genes back to you. I wonder if you really want that.

      And IMHO its a proof that this world is crazy if some companies think they have a right to patent life. Just imagine that in the long run this would mean you have to pay license fees for fucking. :-)

  • Simply Scary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by artlu ( 265391 ) <artlu@artl[ ]et ['u.n' in gap]> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:31PM (#9498396) Homepage Journal
    Genetic life should not be able to be owned. It would be the same as if I owned the DNA sequence to create a fish. Would it also mean that each person technically owns their DNA or any other type of unique chemical composition? This could open up an extremely dangerous black market of genetic trade. ie: I could sell my DNA strand on the black market for money, and then I could be freely cloned etc.

    I got off topic, just thinking out loud.
    Aj

    GroupShares Inc. [groupshares.com] - A Free and Interactive Stock Market Community

    • warez & pr0n (Score:2, Funny)

      by xilmaril ( 573709 )
      in the exciting world of the future, the RIAA will have rid the world of music file sharing, but something else will have risen to take it's place.

      oh, what a battle it will be, the PSAA (porn studios association of america) versus the renegade pirates, who fight to keep the genetic information of their favourite 'actors' flowing freely.

      mkay, that last bit sounded dirtier in print.
    • I think the premise here is rediculous.

      That being said, I don't see a problem with a company owning rights to the DNA. After a company spends millions of dollars to develop genetically superior modified wheat, they should have the rights to do whatever they want with it.

      If it is completely open source, once they create it, everyone will have the right to produce this wheat and the company will get no profit from their investment. If there is no profit, they will have no incentive to do the R&D

  • The up side (Score:3, Funny)

    by ColonelPanic ( 138077 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:32PM (#9498403)
    We'll be able to clean up the "intellectual property" law train wreck pretty easily once all the lawyers have starved to death, anyway.

    Also, I predict that it will become illegal to import cheaper wheat from Canada due to "safety considerations".

  • Code differences (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:33PM (#9498412) Journal
    I'm not a lawyer or biologist, but it may be interesting to compare this issue to what's going on in the software industry. There are some clear similarities between genetic code (the blueprint for lifeforms) and software code

    I disagree. Genetic code is a mapping of biological cells used to translate RNA codons, and is representational of a natural reality. Software code implements programs or data for some purpose, but is creative. There is a fundamental difference between the two, IMO.

  • What happens? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MonkeyCookie ( 657433 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:34PM (#9498431)

    What happens when a bio-cracker unleashes a plant virus on all the wheat in North America, and the genetic code to 'Wheat 2.0' is closed-source, patented code owned by a corporation?

    People owning oat and barley futures make a small fortune.

    That would seriously be a good way of making money.

    Step 1: Make nasty wheat virus
    Step 2: Buy barley and oat futures
    Step 3: Release nasty wheat virus
    Step 4: Profit!

  • Viruses (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ekephart ( 256467 )
    Don't mistake DNA and software. When someone creates a virus will we be able to fix it quickly and minimize its effects?

    We don't understand DNA as well as we do code. For now closed is better.

  • Closed Source Universe (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mage Powers ( 607708 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:35PM (#9498439) Homepage
    The universe is closed source, and theres been no problems, if it was open source I don't think we'd have as many hackers hacking on stuff, reverse engineering the cosmos.

  • no less safe than "natural" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nester ( 14407 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:35PM (#9498446)
    what prevents a bioterrorist from grabbing a sample of regular wheat and making a virus for it? where is the new vulnerability?

  • And what's more...it's the US/European (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:36PM (#9498457) Homepage Journal
    corporations which're indulging in despicable patent activities, often at the cost of developing nations and in atleast one case farmers who've been using the so called "innovation" since thousands of years. Case in point: India Fights U.S. Basmati Rice Patent [biotech-info.net].

  • The Point? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ttldkns ( 737309 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:37PM (#9498468) Homepage
    I thought the main reasons to be open source was so that
    1)you can get help from developers across the world and
    2)so that the code can be scrutinised by many eyes and bugs can be very quickly patched.

    without a myriad of good guys being able to scrutinise the genetic structure of the plants the badguys are more likely to find an unpatched weakness, opposed to having to disassemble and map the plants genetic structure first.

    This raises the question:
    is open source only effective when there are more good guy than bad guys?

  • What alarmism (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:38PM (#9498482)
    Sounds alarmist to me. If anyone pulled a stunt like that, their patent would be revoked, if only due to popular protest. People on /. ascribe a little too much power to corporations. If the price of wheat bread goes up 10x, you better believe there's going to be some popular protest - and people vote, not corporations.

    -Erwos
  • This guy's point seems a little weak. If you made an analogy to publishing, what he's saying is something like "the alphabet has existed for a long time, Shakespeare is in the public domain, therefore Tom Clancy's new novel should be free for all to copy."

    There are legitimate ethical questions about patenting life forms, but I don't think that it's really so much of an intellectual-property issue. Patenting the genome of an existing organism sounds like it should be wrong, until you realize that mapping isn't obvious at all (as far as I know, since I'm just a computer programmer).

    I also found the argument about open-source software having fewer bugs to be kind of lame. How many of you will be doing code-reviews on Wheat 2.0, even if the source code is under the GPL? (Besides, the "source" is arguably available anyway; the original is all written in assembly code anyway :)

  • Unfortunately (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anne_Nonymous ( 313852 )
    >> What happens when a bio-cracker unleashes a plant virus on all the wheat in North America...?

    Probably a lot of poor people are going to die.

  • Dangerous Genetics (Score:2, Interesting)

    by javcrapa ( 594448 )
    This actually might happen, we dont have vast ammounts of knowledge on this subject, we are just learning, but if something goes wrong nobody can predict the results. Genetics are great for mankind, but quite dangerous if misused
  • This reminds me of a sig I saw on /. a while ago. It went something along the lines of, "Dear God, please open source the inner workings of the brain. -A.I. Researcher."

  • In case of emergency... break IP rights. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:39PM (#9498504)
    This is so simple...

    "Intellectual Property" is not real property. It's a set of rights granted by law that can be taken back by another law.

    So, if some bio-hacker ever does release a wheat plauge with the intent of profiting on sales of Wheat 2.0, that plan can very easily be foiled simply by passing the Wheat Fraud Prevention Act of 20xx that voids the Wheat 2.0 patent. Problem solved.
  • How can you have closed-source life when the life itself copies the code. Wouldn't every cell in the plant be a decryption device? It reads the code patented by some company and reproduces it uncontrollably.

    Unless you can stop plants from breeding, there is no way you could keep the code inside one plant. And since we eat the fruits of most of our food plants, we *need* them to breed. Well, at least the big three (wheat, corn, and soy).

  • open source and patented are orthogonal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by frankie ( 91710 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:45PM (#9498561) Journal
    The blogger is misusing the term "open source". All patented works are open source, but still proprietary, not "free". Also the code of any organism can be read by performing PCR on its nuclear DNA. True, this is equivalent to assembly language, but it's currently the only language we have for genetics.

    (Side topic: Whoever creates a high-level genetic language and compiler will either win the Nobel prize immediately, or be burned at the stake. Or both.)

    The problem is abusive patents. The Schmeiser loss completely blew my mind. Canada has given carte blanche for Monsanto to (secretly) shoot their wad over the entire country, then charge royalties on every farmer. Patented food crops go way Way WAY across the line of human decency, but our wonderful nations of Freedom(tm) say it's a great business model.

    Words fail me. I can't properly describe how insanely awful this is.
  • A virus... that kills all the wheat in the US... hmm...

    Curse you, Atkins! Curse youuuuuu!!

  • my thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tsiangkun ( 746511 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:47PM (#9498587) Homepage
    1) DNA sequences appearing in nature should not be patentable. They are already in widespread use, similar to prior art.

    2) Engineered sequences can be patented, but not the organism holding the engineered sequence.

    3) Engineered sequences which escape into the natural population through natural reproductive means loose their patent, with a caveat, the former patent owner should be held responsible for all clean up cost, and may be subject to bio-terrorism charges for endangering a nations eco-system.

    Just thinking outloud, sorry.

  • If the proposed scenario really happened, then the US Congress would pass a law that either nullified the Wheat 2.0 patent or set the license fee to one cent. Remember that the the first priority of every elected offical is to be reelected.

  • Current parallel - M$ is doing this now (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jtheletter ( 686279 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:49PM (#9498633)
    Let's see, a conglomerate unleashing an engineered virus into the wild, then offering licensed technology for a fee to counteract or fix the problem?

    Why does this immediately remind me of a new brand of antivirus software [slashdot.org] that would appear to take advantage of (read as: extort) the same type of situation?

  • Moving too fast? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dancingmad ( 128588 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:51PM (#9498657)
    I'm a bio student and Dr. David Suzuki, a noted geneticist and bio ethicist came to my university (Emory) last semester to deliver a speech about this very subject. He argued that genetic manipulation had enormous potential to do good for the world, but there was little chance that corporations would use it to do good (He says genetically modified food feeding the world's poor and hungry is a sham - we already make enough food for everyone on earth, the problem is distribution, through those selfsame corporations) and that genetic technology was simply moving too fast for people to both come to terms with it and regulate its widespread use.

    We're seeing this in the crazy lawsuits and issues stemming from genetic engineering (companies forcing farmers to pay for genetically modified crops that accidently took hold on their land and the supposedly sterlie glolight danios aquarium fish [which arent sterile - indeed since they really are just zebra danios they should breed like mad]).

    The further corporatization of science is not a good thing; yes the money does help new research get done, but none of the important sharing of information goes on. We've had open source in biology, through research and journals (Watson and Crick's use of many source to construct a model of DNA comes to mind immediately) and that kind of peer review will be very necessary in genetics.
    • You're absolutely right: the problem is distribution. Unfortunately, evil corporations are not to blame. Whiny, ill-informed europeans are at fault. Thanks to their irrational and ill-formed opinions on GM food, millions of tons of corn that the US donated to africa were turned away a few years ago, for fear of contaminating native strains. Millions of people continue to starve to death.

      A frenchman will eat a piece of unpasteurized cheese that's crawling with cooties; a japanese person will gamble their li
  • Since when did blogs become a credible news (much less academic) source?

  • unpopular position (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hochopepa ( 790569 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:56PM (#9498716)
    I realize that it's incredibly unpopular on slashdot to come out in favor of practically any intellectual property, but this article was logically flawed. Yes, it makes sense that the genetic code(s) for apples should be public domain, or perhaps even shared by the few people willing/able to describe those codes, but to extend that logic and say that if someone CREATES a new code based on the old, let's say for an apple that cures cancer, is ridiculous. At the very least, if someone were nice enough to do so on their own dime (they'd have to if they didn't own the improvement - we'd all just steal it from them otherwise) then we should be nice enough to give that guy some help/money/services in exchange for his incredible contribution to life. If only we could count on everyone to do that, or if only there were some kind of sociological structure to accomplish the same goal. OHWAIT! There is - and it's called the public freaking market. By allowing (temporary) ownership of intellectual property such as this, we collectively incentivize innovation, via direct reward. I completely agree with shareadvocates that in some cases, specifically in environments where information is quickly and universally shared as a matter of course, that same level of innovation can probably be reached or even surpassed by many people making very minor, inexpensive innovations collectively. Hell, there are millions of programmers - it's not that exclusive a club. But in genetic engineering and manipulation, where the resources to contribute to the science are often incredibly expensive, more protection and incentive needs to be applied if any innovation can be expected.
    • This essay on Telling good patents from bad patents [4brad.com] has a test for what makes for a novel patent:

      "Patent law, as we know, requires inventions to be novel and not obvious to one skilled in the art. But the patent office has taken too liberal a definition of novel. They are granting patents when the problem is novel, and the filer is the first to try to solve it. As such their answer to the new question is novel. The better patents are ones that solve older problems.

      Amazon was one of the earliest internet s

  • As anyone with even a cursory familiarity with modern biology knows, nobody "writes" genes. We don't understand nearly enough about biochemistry to do this yet. The genetically modified organisms on the market today start from an unmodified genetic stock, then have genes from other strains or species spliced into them. Declaring that you own a gene merely because you were the first to commercially exploit it is patently ridiculous. It's as if I found a rock whilst hiking, then declared a patent on all sedim
  • Is that like Soylent Green?
  • Although the courts seem commercially biased, all farmers that grow non-mod'd crops have a basis for lawsuit due to the negligence of Monsanto (and other GMO companies) to control their product. They have, in fact, lowered the value of the farmer's infected crop and (if the farmer grows his own) future crop's seeds. Although in practice this position is absurd (cross-pollination happens regularly depending on land configuration and the wind patterns/strength) the current ruling leaves this argument open for

  • Heading off the GPLed Genes (Score:3, Funny)

    by Eberlin ( 570874 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:06PM (#9498843) Homepage
    Alright, folks, if your genes were GPLed, then all the derrivative works from those genes have to be released to the public. There would be no one single "ownership" of those genes.

    Consequentially, that means there is no obligation to wait until said product is 18yrs old before it reaches EOL with the current maintainer. Since the product is GPLed, it theoretically can be picked up and maintained by anyone and everyone that wishes to do so. If anyone should profit from publicly reselling the product, they are required to um...release the genetic material along with all the enhancements and alterations to the bastard's DNA.

  • Life *is* open source already (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Angst Badger ( 8636 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:09PM (#9498875)
    What happens when a bio-cracker unleashes a plant virus on all the wheat in North America, and the genetic code to 'Wheat 2.0' is closed-source, patented code owned by a corporation? Should life be Open Source?

    What, so Wheat 2.0's team of volunteer geneticists can rush out a quick patch? And would you like user-contributions to be in the form of digital sequences, or would you rather have us do a little quick PCR with the live stuff and ship you a test tube full of DNA?

    Living organisms are open source already. Given the necessary hardware and the accompanying wads of cash, you can crack open any nucleus you want and sequence its chromosomes until the cows come home. Sure, it's uncommented, but it's not like Monsanto is sponsoring an annual obfuscated protein sequence contest, and if you're allergic to uncommented code, Open Source is definitely not your cup of tea.

    If you're really concerned about engineered agricultural diseases, you might want to consider the solution that 3.8 billion years of evolution came up with: genetic diversity. If you don't have three midwestern states entirely covered with the same clones, it's going to be much, much harder to obliterate the whole crop.

  • Sadly, it happens every day... (Score:4, Informative)

    by drmike0099 ( 625308 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:21PM (#9499043)
    This stuff is taking place on a much less headline-grabbing scale every day around us. For instance, just today in the LA Times there's an article [latimes.com] that talks about how the fees on patents on the hepatitis C genome were stifling research over the past decade on what many infectious disease experts believe will likely become the next mega-killer in our society. It will be tragic when that ten-year-long lag is found to have delayed the creation of good treatment or a cure, costing thousands of lives. This is a much more real and probable situation.

    What makes it worse is that (I'm guessing here) these genes were probably discovered with public funding of some sort. A similar thing happened a few years ago when the Staph aureus genome was decoded using a lot of NIH (i.e. taxpayer) money to pay for the research. The company then went out and patented it, to a great deal of uproar in the community. If you were paying attention, it also happened during the SARS scare, and I remember two companies were trying to figure out who was really the first to get to it, cuz the one in Toronto was going to essentially release it free to the world, and the other was a company that was going to patent it and make the world wait for their marketability research to figure out what name they should choose for the vaccine. Hopefully this stuff will be headed off soon, but the gov't is so hopelessly in the pharmaceutical companies pockets on this and everything else, I have little hope.

    • As I'd commented [slashdot.org] in Open Source for Biotechnology [slashdot.org]:"as others have pointed out, software development isn't as expensive as biotech / pharma development. On the other hand, the potential cost to human lives of closed vs. open source development for biotech is also huge. We should be talking about it at least as much as we talk about SCO. We have to talk about the real costs and benefits of how our patents and methods affect people.

      One example: trypanosomiasis- sleeping sickness. Infects 500,000/year, kills

  • Misleading analogy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bgeer ( 543504 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:26PM (#9499118)
    "What happens when a bio-cracker unleashes a plant virus on all the wheat in North America, and the genetic code to 'Wheat 2.0' is closed-source, patented code owned by a corporation?

    This analogy is very misleading; with software, a worm that takes out half the net--say, blaster--causes temporary damage. Many people never even noticed blaster. In meatspace, a virus that took out all of the US's wheat would cause mass starvation and civil disorder.

    In other words in software we have the luxury of assuming that failure is inevitable and planning out how to fix future failures; in meatspace you absolutely must prevent catastrophic failure or you might not get a second chance.

    It's definitely true that we're not far from being in a world where a reasonably smart person can make a doomsday virus, and it's important to think about these issues beforehand, but I think this line of reasoning is misleading.

    • From Why does genetic diversity in crops matter? [oregonstate.edu]:

      In the early 1970's, a new variety of corn was released in the US; the "Texas male sterile". This variety had many desirable properties, and growers were excited about it, planting it over miles and miles of corn acreage in US . It was, of course, bred to be resistant to the most common corn diseases. However, it did not have genes for resistance to a previously unimportant strain of a fungal disease; the southern corn leaf blight (caused by the fungus Helm

  • It is time for the idiocy to end (but it won't) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SetupWeasel ( 54062 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:29PM (#9499149) Homepage
    I mean what the hell is going on here? In my opinion, COPYRIGHTS for scientific information goes against the whole concept of science. Furthermore, there is no possible justification for the exclusive use of ANY scientific information or patents for any scientific discovery or engineering feat that accepts ANY public funding. I paid for that. I should be able to use it.

    You heard me pharmacutical industry.

    This idea that genes can somehow be patented is ludacrous. I'm fine with patenting a way to see the genes or a way to make the genes. I may not be able to see my own genes or the genes of a stalk of wheat. That doesn't mean they belong exclusively to you if you can. Even if you create a plant or animal entirely from scratch, the genes belong to that plant or animal first.

    Hey Mr. Wheat Stalk, do you have any objections to the free distribution of your genetic code? Speak now, or forever hold your piece.

    You should not be able to patent a concept or any generic product, but how can you defend patenting anything that exists in the wild.

    Take an example of rubber. You can patent a machine that extracts the rubber from a tree, and I'm fine with that. You shoud not be able to patent the idea of extracting rubber from a tree. Now people think you should be able to patent the tree's rubber.

    What are we coming to? Why are we allowing this to happen?

  • Issue not unique to GMOs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer@alum. m i t.edu> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @04:32PM (#9499985) Homepage

    Although there may be other reasons to be wary of genetically modified organisms, the problem here isn't unique to GMOs. It arises in any situation in which the public good requires the release of proprietary information. This can happen with chemicals, and probably with various mechanical and electronic devices. For example, back in the 1960s my father, a neurologist, handled a case in which a farmer had been overcome by the fumes of a farm chemical (a pesticide, I think) and needed to know what was in it in order to treat him. The manufacturer refused to tell him, claiming that it was a trade secret. Fortunately, my father was able to get the state government to act. The attorney general called the president of the manufacturer and told him that if he didn't provide the information he would do everything in his power to make sure that that company never did business in the state again.

  • Get rid of stupid IP laws! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @10:49PM (#9503069)
    I have a very simple answer: OUTLAW INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY as we know it. This is nothing more than an artificial way created by the government to charge for something that should be freely distributed in the first place.

    Note, this doesn't mean that copyrights would no longer exist, etc., but it does mean that all intellectual property rights would permanently expire, say, five years after applied for. This includes patents and copyrights. I guess it makes sense for trademarks to last as long as the entity that creates them exists. Oooooooooooooooh well.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Close