Patents Versus Your Health 71
ethzer0 writes "It's no surprise to the Slashdot crowd that patents are a hot topic
these
days. But a story on Wired reports that Edwin Stone and Val Sheffield, professors at the University of Iowa, have discovered links between 15 genes and certain eye diseases, which means genetic tests could be developed for the diseases. But often the scientists find the genes or parts of them have already been patented. Any diagnostic test involving a patented gene could infringe on someone's intellectual property."
God (Score:5, Insightful)
How did we get to the point where we can do this? You didn't really do anything but make a discovery of something already existing in nature. You created nothing; so how do you patent what you didn't create?
Re:God (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps, but we reverse engineered and open-sourced the human gene.
Re:God (Score:2)
That, and I thought natural discoveries were unpatentable?
Re:God (Score:3, Insightful)
That last "so it wasn't patentable" is where you are mistaken. Sure, you can't patent the sequences per se. But if you have a use for that data such as a genetic test for a disease caused by a certain combination of GATTACA, you have patentable material.
Re:God (Score:2)
Nothing there is to prevent me from detecting MS gene precursors with a test that uses genes X, Y, and Z but chemical markers A, B, D and F while Pfizer uses markers C, E, G, and P.
Right?
Call your lawyer (Score:4, Funny)
DO NOT call your lawyer! (Score:4, Funny)
I patented the "Bullshit" gene. Therefore, all lawyers, politicians, CEOs and feminists aren't allowed to do anything at all unless they pay me substantial amounts of money for using my gene. US elections are coming and this patent is going to make me fuckin' RICH!
Also, feel free to mod me down, but only after a 250k Euro deposit to my Swiss bank account as pre-emptive settlement for patent violation. :)
Re:DO NOT call your lawyer! (Score:2)
Re:DO NOT call your lawyer! (Score:1)
Re:DO NOT call your lawyer! (Score:2)
I think you violated my patent when you hit the "Submit" button.
That would be 250k euro, please.
It's shameful. (Score:5, Insightful)
So they called their friends who set the rules and had them rule that you could patent any gene you wanted..
And they went to work patenting everything they could get their hands on. Cranking the shit out like it was 1999.
Somehow people managed to get their act together and raise a stink about this and the patent office tightened their rules. Now you have to show how you found the gene, what you think it might be useful for etc. But I'm positive these rules are bent around like bamboo sticks.
So now we have all of the squatters who did the original landgrab vs. the legitimate scientists wanting to do real research.
It's obvious what should happen. The landgrabbing squatters (funny applying this term to the already filthy rich corporatists) should be kicked out on their arses and research proper should begin.
Is it going to happen? probably not. Don't forget how this story started, the powerful pulling the strings.
Re:It's shameful. (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong...I don't necessarily trust the government to run the healthcare system (like Canada) either. I think that would result in a hugely inefficient system. But something is clearly wro
Huge implications for Oz (Score:3, Interesting)
Back on topic
Questions maybe some people can answer:
1) Is there a strong likelihood of drug companies not continuing to invest in drug R&D if they are not allowed to maintain a monopoly for some period.
2) Do the major 5 drug companies develop the most life saving drugs or are they mainly nice-to-have (but profitable) ones like Viagra.
Re:Huge implications for Oz (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe someone should send him this article.
The ammendment is likely to be passed though [news.com.au], so it seems that the only reason goverment had this debate was to see who could speak more like an Aussie for the US Press (I think Latham won).
Interesting article from Crikey [smh.com.au] gets
Re:Huge implications for Oz (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the latter is where we're heading.
Re:Huge implications for Oz (Score:2)
FFFish, I think you may have inadvertantly hit the nail on the head there.
Now, because we have patents on diseases, we can sue the disease itself for daring to rear its ugly head without first licensing the relevant patents!
(Or, more likely, sue the patients for catching a patented disease....)
Re:Huge implications for Oz (Score:1)
Re:Huge implications for Oz (Score:2)
Re:Huge implications for Oz (Score:2)
1: The upper management are the most greedy human beings on planet earth, if they thought they were not going to make at least 20% over their R&D investment in the short term, they would not only not do it, they make it absolute certainty no one else could / would either.
2: Both and also we routinely file for "defensive" patents to make sure just because we can't figure out a use for a thing right now, n
Re:Huge implications for Oz (Score:2)
Invalid (Score:5, Informative)
These patents can't stand, and should never have been given in the first place.
To receive a patent on something, you have to have INVENTED IT (like a lightbulb).
You cannot patent something you DISCOVER (like a comet).
Do these companies claim to have invented humans, or just certain diseases that have been around for millenia?
Re:Invalid (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Invalid (Score:5, Interesting)
So, has the use a hammer to drive a nail into a piece of wood already been patented?
Can one patent a way of solving a mathematical equation? Or any other operation in mathematics?
Then how in the world can things like algorithms (gif, mp3, and many others), let alone tools (macro- or microscopic) and ways to use them be patented?
Re:Invalid (Score:1)
Yes, it's called a Software Patent [slashdot.org]
Patents are gonna have to get worse before it gets better.
Re:Invalid (Score:1)
Re:Invalid (Score:2)
If they are responsible and own it why can't I can sue.
If they are not responsible why the monopoly on the money from gene realted diseases?
Re:Invalid (Score:2)
These people have claimed to have invented ways to isolate the genes from the human body so they can be used for various new things, including genetic tests for disease. The isolated gene, copied through PCR etc. is surely one of the most fundamental and important inventions in history. This isolated form does not exist in nature, and is purely a product of technology.
What is the patent REALLY on (WAS - Re:Invalid) (Score:2)
So to enforce their patent, they have to prove that an enfringer has used their method to obtain that exact sequence.
And if the sequence or the method is different, then it doesn't violate.
Does that make sense and is it correct? In that case then the patent really does seem narrow. I only worry about the method being the only one or its definition too broad. I don't know about these th
Prior art (Score:3, Interesting)
If funding for scientific research is based on the idea that a company can invent something around those discoveries I fully understand. But what this sounds like is that companies are allowed to patent the fundamental rules discovered and not actually a product of any creative work. It's almost like a company patenting the use of strong or weak forces in an atom upon their discovery. Or someone patenting the human digestive tract.
I'd like to hear that there's something to this that I'm not understanding. Unless someone is actually *creating* this genes then I don't see how thay can be patented.
--Matthew
Re:Prior art (Score:2, Informative)
That said, I'm a coward (and not just an anonymous one), so don't get set to see me challenging anything.
Re:Prior art (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it because it's actually gene sequences that are being reversed engineered and patented, rather than the entire genome being patented in one fell swoop?
Another DNA patent story [wired.com] on wired sheds a little light:
Re:Prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
If you suffer from a disease that involves a certain gene code that is patented... surely, the "creator", who owns that patent, is responsible for you having it, and therefore liable? Or will they be able to sue you for third degree patent infringement?
If a patent holder prevents you from obtaining treatment for your disorder, can you then sue them for withholding information vital to your survival, which is in essence actively preventing your path to continued survival?
I think that establishing a legal precedent whereby a patent holder of genetic information becomes liable for either a) damage caused by their gene or b) criminal prevention of an individual from obtaining treatment to a life threatening condition would be a wonderful disincentive for patenting the blatantly obvious
Nice try , but... (Score:2)
Hasn't the whole SCO mess taught us anything about how patents work?
Re:Nice try , but... (Score:2)
The only real victims are children born after the filing of these patents. Won't someone please think of the children?
Re:Prior art (Score:2)
The existence in vitro, outside the human body of copies of the isolated gene by techniques like PCR is not prior art. Stories about people being sued for their own genome are nonsense because the patents cover isolated genes. Also the patent must include a substantial use for the gene, not just a description of the gene. That use is ALSO not prior art.
Here the story [ama-assn.org].
Re:Prior art (Score:2)
- Louis Pasteur patented a yeast in 1873.
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) found that genetically engineered bacteria useful for cleaning up oil spills by ingesting hydrocarbons were patentable because they are modified.
- The Plant Patent Act of 1930 established patent rights for developers of new varieties of se
Consider abolishing patents? (Score:2)
Patents are bad certainly for my health (Score:5, Funny)
So... what can't I patent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... what can't I patent. (Score:2)
Hmm, ideas for SCO.
Re:So... what can't I patent. (Score:2)
Re:So... what can't I patent. (Score:2)
I didn't say you weren't.
Re:So... what can't I patent. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So... what can't I patent. (Score:2)
Re:So... what can't I patent. (Score:2)
That can be done with genes as well, and certainly a novel approach to gene splicing or gene identification would be patentable. The problem is that researchers in this area aren't using creat
Obvious Solution... (Score:2)
Re:Obvious Solution... (Score:1)
Re:Obvious Solution... (Score:1)
Technique for gaining satisfaction by beating the living s*** out of holders of patents on genetic material
How? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have some experience in the field.. (Score:4, Insightful)
In most cases the patent holders have not demonstrated a use for their patent (because they don't know what the gene does without further study), so would lose it. They got a patent, without knowing what a gene does by comparing it to existing genes, looking for similar domains and guessing a functional role i.e. kinase, src homolgy, DNA binding domains like zinc finger motifs, transmembrane helices etc. etc.
Another point is that they haven't worked on each gene in their portfolio since their patent was awarded. I'm certainly no expert, but if you patent something but never use it, or demonstrate a use for it, after some period of time the patent is easily annulled.
The ownership of the genome is a grey area at present, as few government around the world are keen to meddle in what really is a natural resource in the ownership of everybody. It is currently being left to market forces to determine what level of ownership can be given to someone who has put a lot of R&D money into understanding the genetic basis of disease. It is pretty ludicrous, however, that some part of the DNA in my own cells has an ownership right asserted over it by another company or individual.
Re:I have some experience in the field.. (Score:3, Interesting)
If a biologist were able to form their own unique RNA/DNA pattern from scratch and truly "invent" a gene or sequence, I might buy the concept of a patented genes. Particularly if you could write out a gene sequence like writing computer software to a hard drive and "build your own monster"(tm).
Molecular Biology isn't quite there yet (close, and may get to that point), where you can stick in a CD-ROM or download an image over the internet and
Re:I have some experience in the field.. (Score:2)
So you are saying that people have been doing genetic tests for diseases for 4 million+ years? Give me a break.
Re:I have some experience in the field.. (Score:2)
I'm saying 4 million + years of using a certain gene sequence by myself and my ancestors. That is a big difference.
I'm also saying that you need to have something novel to do when you apply for a patent, and a simple DNA sequence that hasn't been registered with the USPTO before shouldn't count.
Yes, a new diagnostics technique should be patentable, but the scope of the patent would be incredibly narrow if the only difference is the change of a certain protein.
Re:I have some experience in the field.. (Score:2)
It doesn't count. Read the patent policy.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/3607.h
Re:I have some experience in the field.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The patent system is broken, and IMHO political concerns and $$$ are getting tossed around pushing for gene patenting. At least there is a debate going on, but the following statement is somewhat disturbing:
Re:I have some experience in the field.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You miss the point here. The PTO *IS* treating DNA like it were just another chemical.
There is a huge body of patent law and precidence covering chemicals. The ruckus is that the PTO is very much trending towards treating DNA as just another chemical, much to the dismay of the the people who seem to want to treat D
Re:I have some experience in the field.. (Score:1)
Thank you for this discussion. And I will admit that I do need to learn a little bit more about this.
Re:I have some experience in the field.. (Score:1)
The patent system is broke anyway, so detailing exceptions and fine points is just describing how bad it really is.
The patent holders are reasonable (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't free software or the third world, American consumers are quite willing and able to spend large amounts of money on patented medical products (drugs) for their health.
Re:The patent holders are reasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The patent holders are reasonable (Score:1)
Re:The patent holders are reasonable (Score:2)
Sam
You may own my genes, but I'll have the last laugh (Score:1)
Reckess Endangering due to Patented Medicine (Score:2, Insightful)
So, how long before their are law suits against the patent holders because they are "reckless endangering" people because of how they are treating the patents?
If a patient dies because they can't be given a certain treatment because of patents, I know that I would considering sueing. And I am not one of those that would considering sueing because I ordered hot coffee
Re:Reckess Endangering due to Patented Medicine (Score:2)
"Bob Patents Ink fails to give BF Guns a 10 gigawatt plasma pistol patent license for free so BF Guns Inc wouldn't make them and Jerry not having an effective weapon against Leechians was eaten by Leechians." In this example with current law Jerry's family cannot sue Bob or BF Guns. And if Bob drags his feet and BF Guns brings tort to force the sale of patent licenses to BF Guns and this delays production of
License the patent (Score:1)
Re:License the patent (Score:1)
What a load of bollucks.
But wait, you can just go and WORK FOR A PHARMACEUTICAL company!!?? They always do super-awesome, unbiased and well funded research while always releasing data no matter what the result...*breath*
Pull your head out, these sorts of companies are making money at the expense of people's quality of life at best, and lives at worst. This is just an