Australian Federal Court Rules For Patent Over Breast Cancer Gene 160
Bulldust writes "The Federal Court in Australia has ruled in favor of U.S. biotechnology company Myriad Genetics, enabling them to continue to hold the patent over the so-called breast cancer gene BRCA1. The same patent is also being reconsidered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the current session. From the article: 'Federal court Justice John Nicholas has ruled that a private company can continue to hold a patent over the so-called breast cancer gene BRCA1, in a decision that has devastated cancer victims.The decision is the first in Australia to rule on whether isolated genes can be patented, and will set a precedent in favor of commercial ownership of genetic material.'"
if (genom.substr(x) == 'gtca') { throw 'cancer'; } (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The patent is about the method of diagnosis of a certain genetic condition using the mentioned gene. Couldn't find the reference yet, only Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics [wikipedia.org]
I can't help but wonder what our world would be like if our current patent system was in place when man discovered things like gravity, fire, magnetism and electricity. I'm sure there are some good arguments for gett
The World's gone mad! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The World's gone mad! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is another example of where the patenting system (around the World it seems) has just gone completely stupid. A gene is a naturally occuring entity and should not be patentable. Patents are there to give right of ownership of a novel idea, concept or mechanism, not things that already exist in nature. Have I got to patent myself now to stop anybody else from 'owning' me?
I think that cancer patients should be given the legal right to REFUSE to have these patented genes in their bodies.
Please make it mandatory to rid patients of such genes in a timely and safely manner, at the patent holders expense.
I think that's fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that cancer patients should be given the legal right to REFUSE to have these patented genes in their bodies.
Please make it mandatory to rid patients of such genes in a timely and safely manner, at the patent holders expense.
I think that's fair.
I like where you're going with this... Fine... If they want to own the patent on a gene that causes cancer, they should also be legally liable for the all the damage it does. If they don't want liability they can always surrender the patent. Nice job.
Re:The World's gone mad! (Score:4, Insightful)
A gene is a naturally occuring entity and should not be patentable. Patents are there to give right of ownership of a novel idea, concept or mechanism, not things that already exist in nature.
You know, the explanation here may be simpler than it looks. A bribed or blackmailed judge? From TFA:
Justice Nicholas also awarded costs against the applicants.
He awarded costs to a private company that patented the gene against the woman who actually has (had) cancer?
Have I got to patent myself now to stop anybody else from 'owning' me?
Don't worry -- no one is going to 'own' you. But they will 'license' you and possibly 'terminate' you by extracting the body parts that have the gene when you can't pay the license fee. Better start saving now...
Re: (Score:2)
Have I got to patent myself now to stop anybody else from 'owning' me?
I'm not sure about patenting yourself, but of course you can claim intellectual property ownership on yourself becouse you grew and made the shape you have all by yourself.
But maybe the patent owner then claims that you copied a gene that they have patent on billions of times and thus you have to pay them trillions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
you grew and made the shape you have all by yourself.
Oh, crap, you mean that's my fault!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is another example of where the patenting system (around the World it seems) has just gone completely stupid. A gene is a naturally occuring entity and should not be patentable.
The isolated gene, however, is not naturally occurring. You can't possibly infringe the patent by having the gene in you.
There are other reasons why this might be a bad idea and other arguments for why genes shouldn't be patentable, but that's not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps someone can help me out here (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents give an exclusive monopoly on the patented material. What exactly does a patent on a human genetic sequence give you? Does this mean that anyone with that sequence in their genome has violated the patent?
Perhaps its my ignorance of genetic medicine, but the only way I can see this 'invention' being useful is in developing a test for predisposition to breast cancer. Does this mean no-one else is allowed to test for that genetic sequence?
Re:Perhaps someone can help me out here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have it right. The gene is naturally occuring, but the patent prevents any other company 'using' the gene in an artificial way. That includes interpreting mutations in BRCA1 as part of a test, or selecting a treatment based upon the results of that test.
Re: (Score:2)
So they have found a gene that is related to or indicative of Breast Cancer, and then by patenting it (a fucking ridiculous concept) they can then prevent anyone who doesn't pay them from using it to cure cancer?
These people - the entire fucking company - should be lined up against the wall and shot - or at least put in prison for life without parole, given the number of people who might die from cancer that *might* have been cured while they sat on this patent.
This is obscene, utterly obscene. No one shoul
Re: (Score:2)
The gene is naturally occurring, sure. The isolated, amplified gene described in these patents - not so much.
Lots of things that are claimed in patents are the result of manipulation of naturally occurring materials. In fact anything physical, made by man is basically a manipulation of naturally occurring materials.
Re: (Score:2)
"Does this mean that anyone with that sequence in their genome has violated the patent?"
Yep. It's a conspiracy to allow Myriad Genetics to sue every breast cancer patient for infringing on their IP. Cancer patients will most likely settle out of court and have to pay Myriad a license fee in order for them to continue to have cancer. Otherwise they will have to have it removed.
Maybe this will evolve into a new form of cancer treatment, simply sue the cancer out of them!
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean no-one else is allowed to test for that genetic sequence?
Effectively, yes.
He is out of order (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the ruling this Justice is out of line and is not upholding the law, but creating it.
In response to an argument that this is a discovery and not an invention he actually states that if society does not provide financial incentive, companies wont be incentivised to perform genome research.
So basically he has extended the concept of a patent to include discoveries in addition to inventions because he has a personal belief that because it takes lots of money to discover a particular gene, the discoverer should therefore have a monopoly on it.
It is not his role to extend or create laws, it is his role to enforce the law as written, and no law has been passed stating that we as a nation consider a discovery worthy of a patent.
Mod parent up (Score:1)
+1 Insightful, Informative
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gotta love them "living constitutions." No? You don't love them. Me neither.
And the bad news is, we're outnumbered those who do.
Those in power love them, because it removes a check on their power. And those who wish to be slaves, and want their neighbors to be slaves as well, love them too.
More of them than us.
Re: (Score:1)
When Bill Clinton and Tony Blair co-presented the revelation that human kind had sequenced the human genome they both stated that we have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that the material remains open:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwo8KxKFDO4 @15:00 is a good starting point on the ethical issues
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I am the OP.
I think you are confusing judicial activism with ruling from the bench.
Judicial activism is a loose term which means that the judge applies their own beliefs in a ruling, which may apply here. In reality it means that the person who accuses a judge of activism disagrees with the ruling :)
Ruling from the bench is where a judge effectively creates law in their ruling, which is the case here. Before, discoveries were not patentable, now, apparently they are. And in no house of parliament has such a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that according to other posts on this page, the research was done by PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES, not the "companies" the judge claims to want to protect.
Re: (Score:2)
If isolated genes actually did occur naturally this would be a discovery.
Since they don't, the argument is they are an invention.
It's more than just that though. Patents require that the invention be useful. In this case the gene in isolated form is useful because it can be used as a test for the likelihood of getting cancer.
So it's not a patent of a gene in vivo just because it's been sequenced.
It's a patent of an isolated gene that is useful in a lab test.
Now a lot of people have problems with this for va
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's true that the patent is only on the isolated gene, and not the gene in the form as it exists naturally in the body.
However, the process for isolating this gene is something that has already been done for years with other genes, so there is nothing patentworthy in isolating this gene.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's true that the patent is only on the isolated gene, and not the gene in the form as it exists naturally in the body.
However, the process for isolating this gene is something that has already been done for years with other genes, so there is nothing patentworthy in isolating this gene.
But it's not a patent on the process, so the fact that the process has been done before is irrelevant. This is a patent covering a new composition of matter.
It's like a patent on vulcanized rubber. You can't say that vulcanized rubber is not patent worthy, merely because heating things has been done for years.
That's it! (Score:4, Funny)
That's it! I'm patenting oxidane. That's better than Brawndo anyway.
Do women who get breast cancer get to sue? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the company owns our genes, shouldn't they be held responsible then they go wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how patents work.
No, what really happens is that the we will sue improperly licensed people getting breast cancer.
See, if you intend to get breast cancer some day, you better get a proper licence right now.
--
A Myriad Genetics representative
Re: (Score:2)
We saw Monsanto suing farmers who ended up with their "Monsanto genes" in their crops.
However, this is UNLIKE copyrights and patents because the huge elephant in the room is that nature has all the "prior art" in the case of Genes. Nobody should get a patent on FINDING a fucking gene -- only if they build one from scratch.
If these a-holes want to patent Cancer -- they need to make it first. Though I don't see the practical use of a new cancer -- well, actually I do; it would be a lot like the "Anti Virus in
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't rewarding innovation anymore -- we are rewarding ownership of things nobody should have a right to.
It's a rent seeking society, whether backed by government granted monopoly, licensing, or taxation.
Re: (Score:2)
Samkiss explained it well. [slashdot.org] They aren't patenting the gene. They are patenting the test that looks for the gene. You can't patent a gene since that isn't an invention.
Re: (Score:2)
> Fighting cancer by affecting this gene's expression is a method.
The method you use to effect the gene expression might be reasonably patentable, but patenting a motivation to effect gene expression shouldn't be.
Re: (Score:3)
Should a woman become aware that she is a cancer patient and inflicted with this kind of breast cancer ... Yes, sue the patent holder for "infecting" you with their patented genes.
A similar business case seems to work very well for Monsanto.
patent infringers! (Score:2)
so now cancer sufferers are willfuly producing cancer genes, in violation of patent law.
stop it! or fines/imprisonment may result.
Re: (Score:1)
"so now cancer sufferers are willfuly producing cancer genes, in violation of patent law."
You gotta wonder: if you get caught producing cancer genes and/or cells (= derivative works?) without a license, does that also mean the companies and their 'correctional facilities' will seek to cure your cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
Good job. You have successfully misunderstood a story that was in itself a misunderstanding.
Up next: (Score:1)
Tribe of amazons patents Y chromosome and demands immediate seizure and destruction of all infringing articles worldwide.
Ownership (Score:2)
There is only one person who owns my genes: me.
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one person who owns my genes: me.
Hmm... weird... another dualist. Do you own your body? Then, you can sell or give your body away... and let's say you do... what is left? Where are YOU?
I look at it another way. I am my body, my body is me, thus, my genes are me as well.
Re: (Score:2)
what's the going price for an Aussie judge? (Score:2)
American judges, at least in Texas, are dirt cheap.
good, keep the WT gene, I'll patent the mutants... (Score:2)
I'll be charitable (Score:2)
They own the gene? Fine, they're responsible (Score:1)
financially, morally, &c. for the care of _everyone_ who has the gene. Not just health care, feeding, housing, clothing, educating --- _everything_.
If they're not willing to step up to the plate and be financially responsible for their property, it's abandoned and no longer theirs.
William
Anachronism Judges Prehistoric Mutation "Novel" (Score:1)
Prior Art? (Score:1)
Explanation, please? (Score:2)
This flies in the face of everything I understood about patents previously. Can someone in the know explain what's going on here?
Turn the Question Around - what do you propose? (Score:2)
A company has spent a fortune isolating a gene and identifying what the implications of mutations in that gene are.
That is a good and useful thing, right? We would like to encourage that.
Now then, how do we reward the company for their work?
Re: (Score:2)
Buy any medicines they create.
Are you seriously putting human life below profits? This lack of humanity needs to end.
Diseases for fun and profit! (Score:2)
In case no one else recognizes what is wrong with this:
1. Profiting from the misery of others. (Obvious and immoral)
2. Patenting doom.
I guess #2 needs more explanation. Suppose someone creates a genetic mutation which is somehow not only inheritable, but communicable. (Say, through some sort of virus or something) Now, they can be the first to discover it and patent it as well. Then, if a cure is found by anyone, the creators can then seek to profit from it.
Less bad scenario: Another genetic anomaly wh
Meanwhile, at Myriad Genetics: (Score:2)
CEO Your appointment to FEMA should be finalized within the week. I've already discussed the matter with the Senator.
MANAGER I take it he was agreeable?
CEO He didn't really have a choice.
MANAGER Has he been infected?
CEO Oh yes, most certainly. When I mentioned that we could put him on the priority list for the vaccine, he was so willing it was almost pathetic.
MANAGER This cancer -- the rioting is intensifying to the point where we may not be able to contain it.
CEO Why contain it? Let it spill over into the
Court of corporate sponsored corruption (Score:2)
Funny story.. kept on reading assuming I would eventually run into the fine print...ye know that little jem which says this is really about some clever method to detect a complex of genetic code not the code itself... such text never materialized.
Was it ommitted or have things actually devolved to the point where we are seriously now yabbin about direct attempts at patenting gods handiwork just cause someone discovered what it does?
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean my wife can sue if she has cancer caused by this gene?
Re:fucking great? (Score:4, Insightful)
instead of the research staying a trade secret
False dichotomy.
it's monopolised for 20 years
20 years of unnecessary deaths so capitalism can have its way.
and then in the public domain
Except that it will likely trigger further monopolised research which receives other protections or is kept secret.
this is devastating for cancer victims?
Yes. Greed kills people.
Any society organised on competition instead of cooperation, where a man's ultimate goal is to please himself rather than to lift up the world, will result in a lot of death. An extreme will always be harmful. Only a careful balance of individual vs group demands, as in the social democracy practised in Europe up to the early '80s, produces progress.
Re:fucking great? (Score:5, Interesting)
it's monopolised for 20 years
20 years of unnecessary deaths so capitalism can have its way.
You mean "mercantilism". Capitalism by itself doesn't really care about free vs controlled market, but you can have both free market capitalism and that where only large accumulation of capital matters (great landlords in the past, big corporations nowadays). Note that mercantilism is not directly an opposition of free market, just mostly so -- unlike communism, it allows limited economic freedoms outside of big interests that the government chooses to support.
Our governments do so not even out of malice, mostly due to corruption. Yet the effects are clear: war on culture (copyright), war on innovation (patents), with effects that include 20 years of unnecessary deaths in this very article.
Re: (Score:1)
free market
Ex aequo with "capitalism" this is the shortest joke about economy.
Re:fucking great? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's another good sign that people are truly waking up to the reality of what kind of society humanity needs going forward. There's no way a "capitalist society" can manage dwindling resources on a finite planet -- or "reducing markets" which would occur if we started to deal with overpopulation.
A few years ago, I finally read comments on Slashdot that were against the "sainted" Libertarian culture that was so prevalent. Perhaps some young studs who could program were now older, and realized that they wouldn't always be healthy, nor that everyone they knew was always going to "win" or lose based on merit. You get some maturity and you realize "shit happens" -- we aren't always in control.
So now I'm reading someone talking about "mercantilism" and I have hope again for the future. Every knuckle-dragger who wants to promote "unfettered free markets" -- as if there is such a thing outside of a failed state -- refers to Communism (and not the "good" kind). Mercantilism, however, was something our sainted "founding fathers" supported, and it doesn't have the taint of "foreign solutions".
The next thing you know, people are going to realize that we could have the Post Office be the bank since the "Big Government" already takes all the risk for the Banks anyway. Imagine a world where every politician didn't automatically have to be in the pocket of some bank just to get elected to anything above city council.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>Our governments do so not even out of malice, mostly due to corruption.
Selfless malice is unusual, corruption, i.e. monetary interest is typical. I do not know why did you construct the sentence this way.
Re:fucking great? (Score:5, Insightful)
One way patenting genes differs from patenting some kind of mechanism, is that there's almost always another way to accomplish what that mechanism does. I've heard a number of engineers make statements to the effect that the most important thing about an invention is that what it does is possible. So while a monopoly on a mechanism design is valuable, it does not stop all competition in that field of endeavor.
A monopoly on a fact about nature isn't like that. If somebody claimed a patent on gravity, there are no alternatives. If someone patents a gene's involvement in a certain disease, there is no substitute for that fact to be discovered.
Monopolizing genetic treatment and diagnosis of breast cancer by patenting BRCA1 is like monopolizing all flying and lifting machines by patenting gravity.
Re: (Score:1)
Competition for shared resources is not the same thing as raiding a farmer's field because you were too stupid or lazy to plan ahead.
You typed your message in on equipment developed by the modern equivalent of farmers, investing and developing.
I'm not defending the OP's issue, but your statment has been disproven -- humanity has tried systems where things were "much more oriented around the common good", meaning "not-capitalism", and all it yielded was people peeking over walls wondering why they had to sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, what is false is trying to claim communism would somehow fix the problem since it has its own issues when implem
Re: (Score:1)
Now, what is false is trying to claim communism would somehow fix the problem since it has its own issues when implemented
What's even more egregiously false is claiming that this guy asked for "communism." He didn't: He said society would be better off with significantly less greed (I would put the percentage at somewhere between 25% and 40% less greed needed) and correctly implied that if we were able to achieve that we'd reap many benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Without competition, there wouldn't even be a society. Or people. Competition predates homo sapiens by a billion years. So no, I'm not sure you can convince me that competition is bad.
You're right, but you're forgetting the other half of why society continues to 'work' --albeit somewhat half-assed. Cooperation is essential for society to move forward, and I'd have to say it's probably more important than competition. Traffic is a place where people need to be more cooperative than competitive, IMO.
Re:fucking great? (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple of points:
1. The research wasn't completely privately conducted (universities, and other government-funded organisations were involved), so I think there is probably some reasonable expectation that the community will benefit as a result.
2. I don't think it is acceptable for the manufacturer of the test to be able to set whatever price it chooses, even if that involves mandated licensing. That isn't to say that the business should not be able to make a respectable profit - after all, there was some risk involved on their part. However, because of the implications of the government-granted monopoly I think it is fair to have some constraints on that monopoly even within the 20 years.
3. The real issue is actually the patenting of the gene itself. Patenting of the test is fine: it is an invention, and so a monopoly can be granted on that. However, the same can't be said of the genes.
Re:fucking great? (Score:5, Informative)
1. The research wasn't completely privately conducted (universities, and other government-funded organisations were involved), so I think there is probably some reasonable expectation that the community will benefit as a result.
I believe there was practically no private research, since Myriad was founded after the gene was already located in chromosome 17 and it was only a matter of time for the teams in different universities to pinpoint the location and find out the sequence. Furthermore, the company was founded by some of the university researchers that took part (well, their labs took part, at least) in the search for the gene.
Myriad was funded to patent the gene, to put it plain and simple. And by holding a patent not just to their gene test, but any BRCA1 sequence test, they have prevented anybody else for figuring out *why* mutations in BRCA1 may cause breast cancer.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe there was practically no private research... the company was founded by some of the university researchers that took part
So much uni research ends up like this, from gene patents to Google itself, that it's almost immoral to engage in certain sorts of research at particular universities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe preventing anyone else from figuring out why mutations in BRCA1 may cause breast cancer was the whole point of granting the patent? But then maybe I'm just paranoid.
Re: (Score:2)
3. The real issue is actually the patenting of the gene itself. Patenting of the test is fine: it is an invention, and so a monopoly can be granted on that. However, the same can't be said of the genes.
can you get sued for carrying or expressing the gene without a license?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:fucking great? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:fucking great? (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents are for methods. Fighting cancer by affecting this gene's expression is a method. My understanding is that that's why it's patentable under current law. If you discovered that this gene also coded for lollipops, using it to manufacture lollipops would be separately patentable by my understanding.
The goals of patents are twofold: 1. Allow one to recoup investment in research, and 2. Give an incentive to fully share information instead of keeping it as trade secrets. One might argue that in this case it did neither (since the research was separately funded and the scientific publication system already incentivized sharing), but any change in the law to exclude this case should still try to protect those two principles, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing UPTSO wasn't around when Christopher Columbus "discovered" what he thought was India.
And if they had a patent office like we have today; it's a good thing he thought he found a passage to India. He might have patented it anyway if he thought it was a "New" country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
What about prior art, goddamnit. These genes OBVIOSLY existed before they were "invented" by the medical companies.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a patent on obvious and you're in violation. Cease and desist immediately or I'll send my lawyers off to East Texas and sue your ass.
Re:fucking great? (Score:4)
A couple of points: 1. The research wasn't completely privately conducted (universities, and other government-funded organisations were involved), so I think there is probably some reasonable expectation that the community will benefit as a result.
That's not how we do things here, you, you... agitator. We socialize the expense and privatize the profit, and call it "free market". And we will thank you to not confuse our fanboys here who think that they are oh-so uber cool because the read Rand once. The sheep take what we give them and we give them what makes money for us, and we pay a lot of money to "the government" to make sure that it stays that way. So stop rocking the damned boat.
Re: (Score:1)
We socialize the expense and privatize the profit, and call it "free market".
This, in a nutshell, is modern-American business boiled down: Work as hard as you can to avoid every dime of taxes you can, and when you fail, demand a bailout because you're "too big to fail." When things are back to normal? Resume the "bust-out" operation and double your bonus to make up for any money you weren't paid in the bailout year.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> What won't happen is that some ditz who bought a hot beverage and spilled it in there lap and got burned
Sad to see people still completely and totally ignorant of the FACTS this many years later:
Re: (Score:1)
This still doesn't negate that she was a stupid ditz and sued for her own mistake.
Next you'll be telling me hammer manufacturers should be sued for not having a warning about smashing your fingers with the "hard" head.
separate comment on the coffee - it's made with boiling water, last I checked. BOILING Let that sink in for a bit. Waiting...Physics says that's 212F at sea-level. If you make it at home and serve immediately, it won't be 140F unless you have one big cold mug to pour it in.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who engages in behaviour that could be considered foolhardy or reckless in nature is 100% responsible for the outcome.
Not 90%, not 99%, but 100%.
So is holding a cup of steaming coffee between your legs foolhardy or reckless? I certainly think so.
This means that MacDonald's was not in any way culpable, and the "facts" that you state are entirely irrelevant to this case.
Capitalism (Score:2)
Its perhaps worth noting that "capitalism" is a term created by socialists as a label for a particular economic system, and was chosen specifically because of the fact that the labelled system favored the capital-holding class.
So, its kind of funny to see people being surpr
Re: (Score:1)
suggesting that communists save lives while capitalists kill?
You require professional help, preferably in isolation, if you think opposite. Hint: except for science, free software movement, and groups described here [ted.com] there wasn't communism on Earth so far.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps you can live with yourself for murdering 12% [breastcancer.org] of the population every year due to your purchased federal justice, but that doesn't make you right, only a selfish asshole that no one likes.
Discoveries are already instantly in the public domain since there is nothing to build and nothing has been invented.
Why should anyone get a 20 year monopoly for doing literally jack shit all but kill people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is on a shaky ground. It's basically a corporate pharma interest (huge lobby) vs public interest.
Corporate pharma argues that to discover the exact gene, they need significant research, just like with medicine. This is true, though research requires much less then new medicine producing research. They also argue that it's an invention rather then discovery for the same reason why discovering certain molecules leads to new medicines. Molecules that existed in nature for ages, that can be transformed