Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Patents

Patents and Open Source Biotech 164

Posted by michael from the my-new-asian-bird-flu-technique-is-unstoppable dept.
sebFlyte writes "Since Slashdot readers seem to be interesting in the issues and problems surrounding software patents, I thought they might be interested to see that Wired is running an interesting piece on patents in Biotech and the way that they can hold up important research, and how there are clear parallels with the open source software community with the way that advocates of openness are trying to solve these problems."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Patents and Open Source Biotech More

Patents and Open Source Biotech

Comments Filter:

  • Nice linking (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:37PM (#11401927)
    Takes you to the second page of the article. For those who like to skip to the end I guess. first page [wired.com]

  • biotch? (Score:2, Funny)

    by FFON ( 266696 )
    am i the only one who read it as "biotch"

    word

  • Simple solution ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:37PM (#11401936) Homepage Journal
    Exclude living systems and their components (e.g., genes) from the patent system. Period. End of story.

    For those who whine, "But then there won't be any incentive to innovate!" ... GMAFB. Innovation in biotech (and in pretty much every technical field) is done by scientists, not moneymen. And the scientists will continue to do their jobs, whether for prestige or a desire to aid their fellow man or just out of sheer intellectual curiosity. Most of them will do it, BTW, in university labs, not corporate "R&D" shops, just the way they always have.

    If the suits want to make a profit, they'll have to work a little harder to figure out how. Watch me weep in sympathy.

    • Re:Simple solution ... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Antonymous Flower ( 848759 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:49PM (#11402084) Homepage
      Beautiful post, man. If people don't have the natural desire to understand themselves enough to innovate in this field, to hell with 'em.. If someone discovers a way to cure me, or augment me, or terrorize the living hell out of me I don't want that technique monopolized. Call me communist, call me anarchist, call me when Microsoft wants you to install ActiveX to cure your ailments.
      • If people don't have the natural desire to understand themselves enough to innovate in this field, to hell with 'em..

        Understanding requires money, manpower, and specialized resources. We are far past the days when a man like Pasteur could make a significant advance on his own.

        The Gates Foundation alone has spend over $100 million researching AIDS.

        If someone discovers a way to cure me, or augment me, or terrorize the living hell out of me I don't want that technique monopolized.

        But you will take the cur

        • Just remember this cuts both ways. Don't hold your breath waiting for that cure/vaccine. If you want to get the suits at a pharma corp laughing just ask them about what cures they're working on. Now that's a good one! Hahaha.

          What they spend money on are the treatments. That's where the patents really pay off. And even there they save their best treatments until the patents on the lesser ones run out in 5, I mean, 10, I mean 15, years. Only government sponsored or academic researchers work on cures. And the
          • doctors almost always speak in terms of treatments, not of cures. true cures require decades to validate and are rare.
            • I wasn't speaking of doctors but of scientists or more to the point of the management who decides what research those scientists will pursue. The point is not what terms they use, but the fact that any kind prevention (i.e. vaccine) or cure (i.e. killing the virus, destroying all of the cancer cells etc) is extremely unprofitable.

              This is not something that these companies hide. They openly admit it. All you have to do is ask them. They are in business to make money, not to save the world. That is not their

        • Understanding requires money, manpower, and specialized resources. We are far past the days when a man like Pasteur could make a significant advance on his own.

          This is true, but it is a vicious circle. The cost of research has skyrocketed exactly because every research activity involves paying some bio-supplies company for patented materials and techniques. If a lab needs (say) $100000 per year to do serious research, they will patent/sell anything they can so that they can survive. Scientists themselve

    • Re:Simple solution ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pbody ( 532589 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:52PM (#11402126)
      Not that I'm a lover of the patent system, but the scientists do not work independently of the moneymen. Government grants only go so far, but the push to patent is VERY strong in the universities. Which personally sucks for me (my field is theoretical physics), and even though I don't do patents, but I still have to justify the work to the moneymen on a regular basis :( We're (sadly?) way past the times when a person/group who wants to do experimental work can just do their jobs without big $$ support.
      • the scientists do not work independently of the moneymen.

        This goes double for industry. You invent something, the company patents it. You might be the inventor, but the company is the assignee. It is their patent to do with what they please. I have patents in a mixture of software and biology. Where I work, and I assume it is pretty much the same in most places, if the company wants to patent it, you have no choice. I am not against patents, but if you work for a corporation and they want to patent
      • Well, to me, this pretty much proves my point. My field is comp. bio., so I'm a little closer to the direct money flow than you are -- but honestly, neither of us should have to justify our work by next quarter's returns. Fundamentally, I believe that scientific research is a public good, like roads and national defense: it may or may not produce an immediate, quantifiable profit, but the nation as a whole (including the economy) is clearly better off when it is properly funded. In other words, yes, dam
        • Fundamentally, I believe that scientific research is a public good

          Same here. Unfortunately, the money is limited (although, where it is going to besides the public good is a whole other can of worms). I think that if we want more basic research funded (by the people and the corporations) the answer is to get better PR. This is what the APS (American Physical Society) is trying to do this year by promoting 2005 as the " World Year of Physics [physics2005.org]".

          damn it, they should just pay us for being brilliant. ;)

          Kn

      • Re:Simple solution ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by i_should_be_working ( 720372 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @06:40PM (#11402622)
        yes, it does suck to have to justify all resarch and make it sound like it's going to be usefull/profitable in the near term. In my group we have to make our resarch sound like an essential step on the road to a quantum computer, but to us it's just research.

        But that's different than having to worry about whether your research infringes on a patent. I think what the parent post meant was that biologists and scientists in general don't want to keep their research closed and patented in order to make money themselves (Funny how the patent pushers go on about needing patents to provide incentive and progression when scientists know that science has to be open to flourish). I guess a tough situation could arise when your funding agency or university is insisting that you get a patent when you know it will be a hindrince to your field.

        So maybe there should be a law. Absolutely no patents in general blue sky research. And if that lowers funding and slows down resarch, well it won't slow it down as much as this patent problem could.

        Only in some sick bizzaro world can I imagine having to stop my research because it infinged on a patent, but it actually happened to a professor at my uni. He does geological resarch and was using a method of determining the density of earth at very low depths. He uses it for basic 'what is the earth made of and what's it doing' type research, but apparently some company that prospects for oil had a very vague patent on the general method and is now trying to stop him from doing his research.

        What a hateful thing

        So I agree with you that big money and even big corporations sometimes have to be involved. I just wish patents weren't.
    • 1 problem.

      Is a Virus living?
      What about bacteria?
      What about the single protein that causes CJD?
      What about a pint of beer, or some new way of making a plastic that uses designer bacteria in the process.

      • Good questions. My answers would be, in order:

        Viruses: maybe, maybe not, but close enough for legal purposes.

        Bacteria: clearly yes.

        Prions (self-reproducing proteins, such as the presumed causative agent for CJD): um, er ... let me think about that one for a while.

        Pint of beer, plastic, etc.: no, and I don't have any problem with anyone patenting a specific formulation of beer or plastic or anything else. It's the yeast, bacteria, or even individual genes used in the process that IMO should be off
        • I really don't think these are good questions. The question "Is X alive?"treats life as some singular property that a thing can either have or not have. The discussion here ("X is alive if X displays the following 50 properties: blah, blah, and blah.." .. "..well, but that doesn't count as an instance of property Z, since it lacks these 10 sub-properties..") strikes me as rather medieval; we moved beyond that many years ago.

          If you want to draw a line between the patentable and the unpatentable, then come
      • Is a Virus living?

        No. A virus requires a cell to replicate in. A biologist would probably say the cell is the basic unit of life.

        No the question is what do you mean as a 'component' of life? All organic compounds? Well, many organics are synthesized in the lab these days. Polyethylene is and organic compound. As is acetic acid, all alcohols, etc.

        Clearly 'component' of life is going to be very hard to define.

    • 1. A man has a right to his own life, and no man has a right to another man's. (i.e. no slavery)
      2. A man must use his mind in order to survive.

      Since survival is the process of maintaining life, it follows from these that a man must have the right to the products of his mind - the right to own property. The products of his mind are both material, likeusing his skills to produce goods, and non-material, such as discovering a useful new process in biotech.

      The rightful purpose of the government is to prot
      • What happens when life itself is patented? Owned by Microsoft, PicoLife or what have you.

        I'd like to file a patent please. Yes, It's: "A mechanism composed of organic matter that hunts its own food, reproduces, responds to stimulus, and adapts to stimulus."

      • Re:Simple solution ... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by syphax ( 189065 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @06:28PM (#11402515) Journal
        2. A man must use his mind in order to survive.

        So must a lion.

        Since survival is the process of maintaining life, it follows from these that a man must have the right to the products of his mind - the right to own property.

        This is what is known as a logical leap. Why must ownership of ideas be *exclusive*, as the parent seems to suggest (i.e. if I own an idea, you can't own the same one)? Ideas are not like diamonds; the replacement cost of sharing an idea is nil.

        If you deny that men can own their ideas, then you deny that men can survive by ideas, and you deny the right of man to survive at all.

        Last I checked, no lion owned a patent for "How to identify, kill, and eat aged wildebeasts," and yet somehow they are able to implement said concept and survive. Curious.

        Patent and copyrights represent a pragmatic balance of power between creators and consumers, nothing more, nothing less. To the extent that they inhibit creators for borrowing from existing ideas, they can be problematic.

        There are no first-principle metaphysical requirements for ownership of ideas to be exclusive, as the parent suggests.
      • it follows from these that a man must have the right to the products of his mind

        Quite wrong.

        You appear to claim that no one can rightfully compel another person to do or not do something. A patent is nothing other than the right to compel other people to not do something (it is not a right to do something oneself, btw).

        Patent rights are not natural rights inherent to man. They're artificial, created consensually by society to serve the interests of society, and are shaped in terms of their vesting, sco
      • "If you deny that men can own their ideas, then you deny that men can survive by ideas, and you deny the right of man to survive at all."

        You've completely misunderstood the point of patents. The point of patents is not to let someone own their own ideas, the point is to deny everyone else the right to _their_ own ideas.

        So, how does your philosophy justify someone denying someone else the right to have his own ideas?

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @06:35PM (#11402583)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Exclude living systems and their components (e.g., genes) from the patent system. Period. End of story.

      It isn't going to happen.

      The first U.S. plant patents were granted in 1930, sixteen patents were awarded posthumously to Luther Burbank, 1849-1926, the 10,000th plant patent was granted in 1997. Today in Science History [todayinsci.com]

      Burpee was commercially developing hybrid plant and animal stocks as early as 1876, only ten years after Mendel gave selective breeding a scientific basis.

    • Re:Simple solution ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fhic ( 214533 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @07:49PM (#11403410)
      The parent company of the company I work for has recently developed a noninvasive screening test for colon cancer. Basically, you poop in a bucket and the poop is analyzed for fragments of RNA that are associated with cancerous cells. The company spent approximately a bazillion dollars developing this test.

      So how do you let them protect their investment? The detection processes are already patented (we license them, at a cost of another bazillion dollars a year.) They can't patent the poop itself-- everyone's is different. So they patented the structure of the detectable fragments. Did they invent the fragment itself? Of course not, the cancer cells did. But they made these particular fragments incredibly valuable, in one particular context.

      Do these patents prevent someone else from discovering another, equally detectable fragment? No. All it does is protect the company's investment in R&D, while still allowing them to provide a reasonable profit while providing a valuable service.

      If it weren't possible to patent such things, this research would never have been done. And believe me, if you've ever had a colonoscopy, you'd be damned pleased that an alternate technology exists.
      • They can't patent the poop itself-- everyone's is different.

        Don't be so sure. With the USPTO and a good patent attorney I'd give it a 1 in 10 shot. Even with all the prior art.
      • "If it weren't possible to patent such things, this research would never have been done."

        Colonoscopies take time and money, and colon cancer kills taxpayers. As it is cheaper and more resource effective to use tests on feces, it would be in the interest of both taxpayers and insurance companies to fund such research.

        As it then would not be patented, it would be cheap enough for MrMuscle to add it to their toiletbowl fresheners, indicating possible colon cancer by color marking the toilet water and almost
    • And the scientists will continue to do their jobs

      Won't they find it hard to do their jobs if, due to the inability to patent any outcome, the company eliminates said job?

      It's more than just a little disingenuous to claim that the scientists are independent of "moneymen." We all need to make a living.
      I do private experimentation at home on my own time, on my own dollar, but I still need a job so I have the money to buy equipment.

  • On a related note: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:38PM (#11401944) Homepage Journal
    Viva la revelotion [metafilter.com] , capitalist running-dog pharmacorps!
  • Ok, and how do you suppose biotech devices to be open source? Oh boy! Now we have to look forward to programmed HIV viruses...
    • Ok and how do you propose the current system to be viable. When Monsanto owns all the food in the world and farmers can't grow without a license from them. I can't see that working for any length of time. It comes down to fix the problem now or deal with the utter breakdown in the future.
      • Monsato doesn't own all the food in the world, that's ridiculous hyperbole. They have rights to a few GM crops that they invested millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours into developing.

        So plant regular corn or soybeans.
        • And when their seed blows into your crop (happens) they get to sue you and basically take your farm. search on Percy Schmeiser and read his story of how Monsanto pretty much ruined his farm.

        • There are articles you can google for about Monsato Suing people that did use regular corn. Their neighbors bought the GM corn, and it cross polinated. And Monsato says that they have to pay because they own the patent on that type of corn. Even though the farmer never bought it.

  • Same thing happening in film/media (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:40PM (#11401973)

    Is copyright killing culture? [theglobeandmail.com] Some documentary filmmakers certainly think so [centerforsocialmedia.org].

  • Ho hum (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:49PM (#11402072) Homepage Journal
    Biotech is filled with patents and IP. There are patents for gene sequences, for chrissakes. Because patents (unlike copyright) cover even accidental duplication, this essentially is a ban on evolution. Great for the Bible Belt, but not so great for the species.


    Interestingly, you can download sizable chunks of the gene sequences for cows, chickens, humans, the SARS virus... Clearly, the researchers who have made such information available are Communists, for not protecting their IP rights and demanding the first-born from all who would see such information.


    Pathetic. The bulk of serious research is done in an open environment. If you want to see quality, verifiable, useful information, you don't look in the patent office. You look up the research papers that have been published and are either freely available or damn cheap.


    To the best of my knowledge, the only person known to have successfully learned something from patents was Einstein. But if you look at his best work, you look at the thought experiments, the observations of the ordinary, the stuff that is simply not ownable. THAT is where Real Science and Real R&D takes place.

    • "To the best of my knowledge, the only person known to have successfully learned something from patents was Einstein."

      Go look at a U.S. patent, any one, and look under the section called "references cited" -- there you will see a bunch of other patents that the current patent is "built upon."

      I guess you could be cynical and say that those references are only listed so that the patent owner can later avoid an inequitable conduct charge, and to basically take those patents out of contention in the case some

    • Re:Ho hum (Score:3, Informative)

      by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 )
      There are patents for gene sequences, for chrissakes

      No, there aren't. Genetic patents cover the gene PLUS some use of the gene.

      ssentially is a ban on evolution.

      You have no clue.

      The bulk of serious research is done in an open environment.

      Do you realize what a patent requires you to do? You have to publish your results in order to be granted a patent. Anyone can download your patent and us the results for further reasearch. Without the patent the researcher would have NO incentive to patent.


      To t

      • Re:Ho hum (Score:2)

        by jd ( 1658 )
        No, they can't. Not without paying you oodles of cash, which is an immediate disincentive. Which is why REAL researchers publish, rather than patent. The entire Free Software/Open Source movement is a direct evolution of existing methods used by researchers to keep research free. Public Domain is the province of scientists, not corporations.


        You can tell me to learn about patents, but you have much to learn about history.

        • No, they can't.

          There is an experimental use exemption in US patent case law. So long as you don't intend to made money from the work, you can do any R&D you want and be immune from infringement claims.

          REAL researchers publish, rather than patent

          Have you ever been a researcher? If you had, you would know that just about all researchers file patents before they publish these days. Universities are making so much money from patent licensing that there is no place you can work that doesn't require y

          • Re:Ho hum (Score:2)

            by jd ( 1658 )
            I spent a good many years as a researcher. I was the first in the UK to have a registered IPv6 domain (I beat some Aberdeen network guys by 1 day). I've done plenty of work in themable multimedia, computer-aided learning and virtual worlds as a research tool. Also did a few years of comp sci research in support of nuclear research facilities in Britain and Australia.

            So I guess I know the scene pretty well. I've never patented any work I've done, nor has anyone else I've worked with, to the best of my know

          • If you had, you would know that just about all researchers file patents before they publish these days.

            LOL! Thank you for the best laugh I've had all day.

            With some honorable exceptions patents are actually a pretty good indication that the research is of little value. Most good researchers avoid patented areas like the plague. Lawyers and the patent office have an extremely biased view of the research community. Mostly, the only researchers they see are the ladder climbers who don't give a shit about th

            • Most good researchers avoid patented areas like the plague.

              Geez. Of course they do. Most researchers are trying to do original work. Duh.

              The "experimental use exception" you mention is useless

              Nah. It's a key provision of patent case law. Established by a Supreme Court decision in 1813 from what I remember.

              In addition patent boosters tend to forget that quality research requires the free exchange of ideas. The paperwork and lawyers associated with patents pretty much stops that cold.

              Bzzzzrt. Patent
  • It's the worst thing we're doing, allowing patents on genetic coding and other areas relating to biology. Imagine if someone discovered a gene that 100% determines whether or not a person gets alzheimers. So the person patents it and subsequently refuses to let anyone else work on drugs that would affect the protein produced by the gene. In the years before the patent expires, a cure could have already been found.

    My example is poor because genes that influence alzheimers have been found already, but it'
    • Not only is the "genetically modified corn" threat possible, it happened. IN Canada several farmers (if memory serves me right, might have been only one) was(/were) sued for growing corn that was PROPERTY OF MONSANTO(TM).
    • Another example, previously featured on slashdot, is genetically modified seeds. What if seeds from a field of grain blow onto yours and you end up with the genetically modified grains or what have you, and you're sued for "stealing" it. It's an actual possibility, and it's MADNESS.

      Not just a possibility it is happening [commonground.ca].
      • Red Herring. In the case cited in your link, Monsanto actually withdrew all charges once they became convinced that the contamination was accidental.

        Nobody has been able to show me a case where Monsanto has gone after a farmer after it was shown the contamination was accidental. It just hasn't happened, and is one of those urban legends that the anti-GMO crowd is using, falsely.

    • Why should you be allowed to patent something that occurs naturally anyway? When are the biotech companies going to start charging me because I have brown hair, blue eyes, and fair skin with freckles; just because they own the patent to them?

  • DNA is an acid. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by deathcloset ( 626704 )
    An acid is a chemical.
    Chemicals cannot be patented.

    What's going on here?
    What am I missing?

    • Re:DNA is an acid. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Icarus1919 ( 802533 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:55PM (#11402151)
      That's not true, every prescription drug is a chemical and they can certainly be patented. Where did you get the idea that chemicals can't be patented? Even different combinations of chemicals can be patented, take for instance sodas. All fairly simple ingredients, but clearly a patentable product.
      • Usually they patent the method of producing the drug not the drug itself.
        • Usually they patent the molecule and every conceivable use for it. Then they patent the way of making it. Then they patent its metabolites. Then they patent the idea of putting it into a red/green/white/blue/whatever pill. Then they patent new ways of prescribing it (once a week, once a month, whatever).

          Blockbuster drugs earn millions of dollars PER DAY. Patent applications cost $10k or so. Trust me, they patent EVERYTHING. That way when some patent is lost on a technicality the company doesn't lose
      • Just a minor point, sodas (or any recipes) are not patentable. The recipe for Coke, for example, is a trade secret, not a patent.

        Recipes aren't copyrightable either.
        • Just a minor point, sodas (or any recipes) are not patentable

          Wrong. Mixtures certainly are patentable so long as you can show they have novel properties.

          Just because something isn't patented doesn't mean it can't be. In the case of Coke patenting the formula would be a dumb move since the duration of patent coverage is only 20 years. After that 20 years anyone could use the same formula. Trade secret protection has no time limit.

          • "Mixtures certainly are patentable so long as you can show they have novel properties."

            Is 'light, crisp, refreshing' taste (I'm looking at a diet Pepsi can here) a novel property?

            I guess I should have been more clear -- maybe you could, in principle, patent a soda recipe -- but how would you show that it has novel properties (beyond what you would expect a soda to have) and that it was nonobvious to one "skilled in the art?"

            "Just because something isn't patented doesn't mean it can't be."

            Very true.

            • Is 'light, crisp, refreshing' taste (I'm looking at a diet Pepsi can here) a novel property?

              Maybe, if you can show that it was unexpected or stronger than anticipated (insert your anticipation here) or whatever given the ingredients. And always remember it's ORDINARY skill in the art.

              how would you show that it has novel properties (beyond what you would expect a soda to have) and that it was nonobvious to one "skilled in the art?"

              When all else failed strawman comparisons with other formulations have
    • Chemicals can be patented ... medicines, synthetic fabrics, fuels, etc. Or do you mean "I don't think chemicals should be patentable"?
    • "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." (USC 35 101)

      Chemicals are essentially mentioned explicitly in the law as an invention patentable. Of course, a new DNA sequence isn't really a new composition of matter, although most things you can do with DNA involve the production of chemicals which might be new.

    • Re:DNA is an acid. (Score:3, Informative)

      by syphax ( 189065 )

      Dude, my grandfather is a chemical engineer and has 60+ patents. Whiteners, that ink-impregnated paper that replaced carbon paper, etc.

    • Chemicals cannot be patented.

      Wrong. Some of the most famous of all patents are on chemicals. Teflon for example.

      The Patent Office is moving to use exactly the same guidelines for patenting genes as they use for all other chemicals.

      • The Patent Office is moving to use exactly the same guidelines for patenting genes as they use for all other chemicals.

        Just my attempt to be informative:

        The USPTO will continue to apply existing case law until an application is denied and taken to the Patent Board of Appeals or an issued patent is litigated and appealed to a higher court, whereby proper procedure (from board of appeals) or new case law (from appeals court) tells the USPTO that the old case law is inappropriate.

        I've drawn plenty of ire a

  • ...when we still have public funding on all this proprietary patent work? A _true_ fiscal conservative republican would funnel the country's money into development that encourages an open and competitive market place. If people want to use their own private money to gamble on patents then that's fine, but not public money!

    Seems to me, we're putting money into public research that feeds private pockets in an unfair way...

    Is the prez just trying to promote his religion in the guise of conservatism?

    I don'
  • Nothing should ever be patented, trademarked, or copyrighted.

    Unless I wrote or invented it.
    • I don't have mod points, so I'll bite the troll instead.

      /. groupthink is only groupthink because it attracts like-minded individuals - those who think dramatically differently tend (note: not always) decide that they can't be bothered with all this nerdy-political-hippy-communist-patent rubbish, and don't spend that much time reading, much less posting to /.
      I suspect (though am prepared to be proved wrong), that much of the "groupthink" is based around a few simple principles:

      1. Many things are wrong with
    • By posting what you've posted, you've proven that there is no /. groupthink. Lots of people, perhaps a solid majority, may hold a certain position on a certain issue; that doesn't mean everyone here thinks exactly alike. If you believe yours is a minority viewpoint, please, by all means, post something cogent in support of it.
  • Interesting. I'd like to know what fellow slashdot users think of the World Community Grid [worldcommunitygrid.org] on these bio patent issues.
  • Biotech != Software
  • Once again.. capitalism and peoples lives, don't mix.

  • What am I missing here? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by espressojim ( 224775 ) <eris@NOsPam.tarogue.net> on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @06:21PM (#11402448)
    Here's an article quite:
    BIOS will soon launch an open-source platform that promises to free up rights to patented DNA sequences and the methods needed to manipulate biological material.

    I thought you can't patent DNA sequences, only processes on sequences. Gene patents without specific purposes were thrown out years ago, weren't they?

    I understand why methods are being patented. They are costly to develop. They aren't obvious. Without patents, I'm not sure what the desire is to invent a new method to cheaply assay something.

    My work uses data very similar to sequence data (genotype data), and the data gathering process has become a commodity over the last few years. Everyone's developed their own machines, methodologies, and patents. You can sign up with any of these guys, and essentially the bottom line is: cents / data point. You weight that in against the size of the batches you're planning on doing over the next number of years, the reliability and service provided by the company's platform, and go.

    These companies would not be innovating newer, cheaper solutions if I could just take those solutions back to the lab and they didn't earn a penny for their effort. As it is, these companies are working on slim margins, and not many of the startups are successful.

    In the past, before these companies came out with their turnkey solutions, we'd have to roll our own. And that means detection systems, possibly robots, databases, protocols for chemical processes, etc.

    When I worked in the lab, we did one of these, based on a paper that was published in 1999. Even standing on the back of another researcher, it took us 18 months to have a working assay system that was 'production ready' for JUST OUR LAB (granted, it's the MIT genome center, and we're a big-ass lab.) Just about the time we finished, the first decent turn key solution came out...and it was cheaper and easier than what we'd developed.

    I love what I do for a living. It's a good time, and interesting work. Would I do it for free, if I had to work a normal job?

    No way. This job alone takes huge amounts of time, outside research, etc to excel. If I wasn't compensated for my hard work, I'd have no time to *do* that hard work.

    (given all that, we're working on open-sourcing chunks of our source code, to at least give something back to the community - but source code is the least of our assets.)
    • Sounds like a bit of a troll to me but I'll bite.

      First, noone said that scientists shouldn't be paid or even whether there should be a profit motive - that's an entire straw man - the question is whether the advancement of science is hindered or helped by the presence of patents. I would argue that patents hinder biotech and also that you can make money without patents - you just have be more clever than being the first to stake out your claim.

      Let us take a look at your example - your assay procedure.
  • our bodies contain already contain all our chromosomes and genes, forcing scientists to pay a royalty to research something we already contain is the height of patent maddnesss...they didnt create something new... it would be as if columbus made people pay him and his descendents a royalty to explore the new world.
    • it would be as if columbus made people pay him and his descendents a royalty to explore the new world.
      No, because Columbus was the equivalent of the scientist rather than the company. His financial backers (i.e. the Spanish Crown) claimed large chunks of the New World and prohibited it from trading with nations other than Spain.
    • it would be as if columbus made people pay him and his descendents a royalty to explore the new world.

      Columbus claimed a hereditary governorship of the new western territories under the terms of the agreement with his Spanish sponsors. That fell apart when the true dimensions of his discoveries became apparent.

  • DNA patent enforcement (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just wait until they crack down on people sharing their patented DNA in anonymous P2P singles bars!

  • Editors cut out the last bit of submission (Score:3, Funny)

    by FiloEleven ( 602040 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @06:36PM (#11402585)
    sebFlyte writes "Since Slashdot readers seem to be interesting in the issues and problems surrounding software patents, I thought they might be interested to see that Wired is running an interesting piece on patents in Biotech and the way that they can hold up important research, and how there are clear parallels with the open source software community with the way that advocates of openness are trying to solve these problems."

    sebFlyte continued:

    It's very interesting. I'm interested to see what interesting direcitons may be taken if these patent holders are interested in furthuring this interesting branch of research for the good of humanity.

    (all in good fun)
  • I was probably incredibly naive to have thought that patents did not prevent scientific research. At least in centers paid by the government...

    This whole patent business often make me doubt democracy where the representatives are betraying or failing us (the people) while the people (exept us?) don't notice...
  • it is important to point out that the whole academic publishing endeavour is a lot like open source. when you publish something publicly, it becomes part of the public domain and therefore unpatentable by anyone. research scientists (even the ones in corporations) depend on being able to access this vast weath of knowledge

    its true that the US congress has gone a bit far in extending patent rights (first drugs had 5 year patents, then 10, and now some have 15 years). this has created high drug prices an

  • Patents and Open Source, Biotch!
  • While your are reading the article on open source biotech, read another article in Wired: The Cuban Biotech Revolution [wired.com]. A reported Castro's quote: "What's all this about patents? You're sounding crazy! We don't like patents, remember?"

    Just another gentle reminder that Open Source is indeed communist at its heart and that the principles of open scientific research, libre software and communism are generally the same.

    Another quote:

    "It's like Castro said: They don't really like patents. They like medicine.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close