Nearly Half the Patents on Marine Genes Belong To Just One Company (smithsonianmag.com) 157
A creature as majestic as a whale, you might think, should have no owner. Yet it turns out that certain snippets of the DNA that makes a sperm whale a sperm whale are actually the subjects of patents -- meaning that private entities have exclusive rights to their use for research and development. From a report: The same goes for countless other marine species. And new research shows that a single German chemical company owns 47 percent of patented marine gene sequences. A just-published paper in Science Advances finds that 862 separate species of marine life have genetic patents associated with them. "It's everything from microorganisms to fish species," says lead author Robert Blasiak, a conservation researcher at the University of Stockholm who was shocked to find out how many genetic sequences in the ocean were patented. "Even iconic species" -- like plankton, manta rays, and yes, sperm whales. Of some 13,000 genetic sequences targeted by patents, nearly half are the intellectual property of a company called Baden Aniline and Soda Factory (BASF).
Which is why can't be patented in the US (Score:4, Informative)
That's precisely why genes can't be patented in the United States. In the US, one can't patent natural phenomenon, nor "the laws of nature" (the laws of physics etc) because those can only be *discovered*, not invented.
Btw the fact that "the laws of nature" aren't patentable is the bit of law that disinformation blogs use to trick their readers, and pretend that anything that can be described in mathematical terms isn't patentable. "The laws of nature" includes not just gravity, but also "the laws of mathematics". The liars make the
incorrect jump from "the laws of mathematics" to "anything that can be described in mathematical terms", saying "you can't patent math". That's not really true - you can't patent the laws of physics or math, so you can't patent gravity, but you can patent a new elevator design. An elevator USES gravity. You can't patent the associative law of addition, you can patent a cool new technique load balancing across a world-class network, which uses mathematical concepts in its implementation.
Re:Which is why can't be patented in the US (Score:4, Funny)
I must say, in this instance. The US got it right and the Germans got it wrong.
I can see patenting a gene they created, or patenting a non obvious use for that gene (putting whale DNA into a cat to create a cat with a blowhole).
To patent a gene in nature seems a ridiculous concept to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see patenting a gene they created, or patenting a non obvious use for that gene (putting whale DNA into a cat to create a cat with a blowhole).
Stop giving them ideas. The last thing we need is to find ways to make cats more annoying.
Re: (Score:3)
"a cat with a blowhole"
Isn't that a furry?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that is the answer to the mystery of why whales beach themselves... Too much cat DNA, they hate the water...
Re: (Score:1)
I can see patenting a gene they created, or patenting a non obvious use for that gene (putting whale DNA into a cat to create a cat with a blowhole).
Would be just as ridiculous a patent as patenting the original blowhole DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
I respectfully disagree. Figuring out which specific genetic sequence/mutation corresponds to a specific physical condition (and thus, creating the ability to test for that condition) is a hugely important and difficult problem.
The U.S. kinda says that you can patent in this area if the test method itself is novel. But that rule ignores the fundamental nature of the problem, namely that the invention is information content itself. The way you read that information (e.g., sequencing vs. some specific test
Re: (Score:2)
But could you give my wife a new blowhole. Hers stopped working when we got married.
Re: (Score:2)
I must say, in this instance. The US got it right and the Germans got it wrong.
Not sure about the Germans.. maybe you're thinking of Australians? Anyway, you're right... SCOTUS did get something right. Eventually Australia did, too.
A June 2013 article, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (No. 12-398), quoted the US Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that, "A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," invalidating Myriad's patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. However, the Court also held that
Re: (Score:2)
you can't patent the laws of physics or math, so you can't patent gravity, but you can patent a new elevator design. An elevator USES gravity.
An elevator is a physical mechanism that does something innovative. That it uses gravity (it doesn't any more than a lever does and is wholly dependent upon orientation) is irrelevant.
You can't patent the associative law of addition, you can patent a cool new technique load balancing across a world-class network, which uses mathematical concepts in its implementation.
Patenting an algorithm is currently allowed. Should it be? That's been a back and forth question with proponents on both sides. However, an algorithm is nothing more than a mathematical expression with potentially some physical model conditionals thrown in.
Useful *new* thing, for a particular purpose (Score:3)
Currently in the US, to be patentable, an invention must be new (novel), useful, produce something useful for a particular purpose, and not be obvious to someone skilled in the art. Obviousness is not in retrospect - the question whether a practitioner who hadn't seen the patent would do it that way, NOT whether, after having read the patent, they'd say "oh yeah, that makes sense".
In computer science, another name for an algorithm is a "machine". Machine and algorithm are one and the same. A pocket watch im
Re: (Score:1)
Currently in the US, to be patentable, an invention must be new (novel), useful, produce something useful for a particular purpose, and not be obvious to someone skilled in the art. Obviousness is not in retrospect - the question whether a practitioner who hadn't seen the patent would do it that way, NOT whether, after having read the patent, they'd say "oh yeah, that makes sense".
If only the PTO would bother to only approve those patents that weren't obvious. Like the Eolas patent as a shining example?
In computer science, another name for an algorithm is a "machine". Machine and algorithm are one and the same.
No. No amount of mushy mealy mouthed word smithing will make machine = algorithm in terms of patents. To be clear, a "machine" is an implementation of an algorithm. The code you mention is covered under copyright, not patents, as it probably should be. The resulting silicon is a machine, subject to patents, much like design drawings vs, say, a printing press.
In case you're wondering,
USPTO rejected it 3 times for obviousness (Score:2)
> If only the PTO would bother to only approve those patents that weren't obvious. Like the Eolas patent as a shining example?
I think it's interesting that USPTO rejected that application for obviousness - three times. Each time they sent it back with more documentation, arguments, and perhaps changes to the application, saying why exactly what the patent covered wasn't obvious. It would be interesting to read those submissions. Later, multiple hearings, in court and at USPTO, said it wasn't obvious (af
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't, and they're not the same. Nothing you've written here bears any resemblance to reality or truth. What you've written is a very self-serving piece o
See chapter 1 of Computer Science 101 textbook (Score:2)
In computer science, another name for an algorithm is a "machine". Machine and algorithm are one and the same. A pocket watch implements an algorithm - the number of teeth on this gear divided by the number of teeth on that gear, etc. It's a machine, or algorithm, made up of gears (multiplications) arranged in a certain way to yield a useful result.
It isn't, and they're not the same. Nothing you've written here bears any resemblance to reality or truth. What you've written is a very self-serving piece of bullshit. An algorithm is not a machine
Browse through chapter 1 and maybe chapter 2 of the Computer Science 101 textbook and get back to me on that.
In later chapters you'll learn that any algorithm written in what's called a "regular language" is equivalent to a category of machines called a finite-state machine. You can draw the machine showing it's parts pictorially, or describe them with code. Tools are available to translate from one representation to the other.
You'll also learn that any algorithm written in a recursively enumerable Lang
Re: (Score:2)
the difference being that you can't patent "laws of nature" but you can patent novel applications for USING those laws of nature.
Re: (Score:1)
If God ever gets copyright rights, I foresee a LOT of prior art patent lawsuits.
Re: (Score:1)
If God ever gets copyright rights, I foresee a LOT of prior art patent lawsuits.
Kind of aside from the major topic, hearing about patenting genes and the dinosaurs' fossils being sold on auctions and all the law, which is focused more on accumulating money than expanding knowledge (which for me - the knowledge and people - are the true value of civilization) it came to me, a purely theoretical thought: what if some alien aristocrat bought the whole solar system like 5bln years ago (a gas cloud then). So he comes and claims his property and says, OK I see you're sentient beings, I will
Re: (Score:1)
Not under today's secularist legal system he doesn't. In fact, I'd say that *all* property rights are an infringement on his copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say a plague of frogs beats any number of lawyers.
Re: (Score:1)
I was wondering when I was going to get the atheist argument.
I would point out that you are saying exactly the same thing I am, but missing the point.
I think a creator God does in fact care a good deal about his creation- and especially about a legal system desinged to *destroy* his rights over that creation.
Thus "we don't give a fuck about god, and 'he' doesn't factor into our laws" is actually the entire point of my first sentence, said without misusing the definitions of words (why you would want to rape
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly equivalent to saying "Stealing power from Mithras/Osiris/Thor/Baal/Zeus/Xochipilli/Russell's Teapot/IPU/FSM/other-fictional-entity is rather the point of atheism, isn't it?"
No, the point of atheism is to not be enslaved by absurd fairy tales.
BTW, you religious types ought to be grateful that copyright has only existed for a few hundred years - otherwise your religions would never have survived the copyright-inf
Re: (Score:2)
So, at first your claim was that the point of atheism was to "steal power from god". Now it is to "ridicule older religions as absurd fairy tales".
That's called shifting the goal posts. and it's as bullshit an argument method as the rest of what you wrote.
"God exists, therefore God exists" is not proof of anything, it's a tautology. You don't have to read hundreds of pages of tautological nit-picking to dismiss something as bullshit. You just have to recognise its built-in assumptions and realise that
Re: (Score:1)
Both are intimately connected, aren't they? Isn't ridicule the first stage of any revolution? I see them very much as the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, and I see no reason to respect the opinion of somebody who hasn't bothered to read the basic white papers on the topic and chooses ridicule instead of debate. Your opinion is just worthless bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm well familiar with Buddhism, including Zen.
Aside from Tibetan, it is atheist. And yes, atheist is religious, and seeking enlightenment is stealing from the power of God.
Re: (Score:2)
Marine patents are mostly useful for trolling.
A lot of people are getting salty over these.
Re: (Score:2)
Prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
How can you patent something you didn't create? Copy-pasted genetic sequences are just copy-pasted prior art libraries!
CAPTCHA: "Lordship"
Re:Prior art (Score:4, Insightful)
Because lawyers and idiotic, corrupted and ignorant politicians. One would think you'd have to look really hard for a clearer case of "discoveries", which are not patentable, but ofc that goes out the window when there's sufficient money involved.
Re: (Score:3)
TFA: " For example, Blasiak notes that BASF has been harnessing the genes of some tiny aquatic lifeforms in an effort to produce designer health foods: âoeTheyâ(TM)ve been splicing genes from different microorganisms into grapeseed and canola, then taking the seeds and seeing if they can produce oils that contain omega-3 fatty acids,â he says."
Sounds to me like they created t
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds to me like they created those modified grapeseed and canola plants..
If they wrote the code themselves without looking at naturally occuring sequences, maybe. But if they spliced it from something else then its just copy-paste.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. Then copy-pasted genetic sequence as you're defining them are and should be patentable. A grapeseed or canola plant that produces omega-3 fatty acids does not exist in nature. It will have been created by people. Which negates your base question "How can you patent something you didn't create?"
Re: (Score:2)
May as well point out that the parent is highly abbreviated: canola produces a minor amount of ALA, but no EPA or DHA, which are the marine omega-3s that are being referenced in TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. Then copy-pasted genetic sequence as you're defining them are and should be patentable. A grapeseed or canola plant that produces omega-3 fatty acids does not exist in nature. It will have been created by people. Which negates your base question "How can you patent something you didn't create?"
Wrong way around. Thats like saying the pencil should be patented while the design you draw with it is not. You shouldn't be able to patent the gene but if you do something and make a different product with it, such as a omega 3 grape, then that is what you patent. Unless you want to start sueing everytime a fish fucks.
Who is even issuing these patents?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he defined "copy-pasted genetic sequences" as including the combination of the marine gene with a plant. The combination of the marine gene with the plant is the design, not the pencil. The patentability of genetically modified organisms was settled 30 years ago [nytimes.com], if not even earlier when considering bacteria (1980) and conventionally bred crop plants (1930).
Re: (Score:2)
No, he defined "copy-pasted genetic sequences" as including the combination of the marine gene with a plant. The combination of the marine gene with the plant is the design, not the pencil. The patentability of genetically modified organisms was settled 30 years ago [nytimes.com], if not even earlier when considering bacteria (1980) and conventionally bred crop plants (1930).
A grapeseed or canola plant that incorporates a marine gene to produce omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) is the different product, and is exactly what I said would be patentable.
Then I guess I misunderstood you, sorry about that, as you were.
Re: (Score:2)
except for (at least) three major problems that prevent patenting:
You can't patent things, and you can't patent ideas, you can only patent inventions, i.e. specific processes and methods for doing specific things.
And thirdly, you can't patent the obvious. Getting commonly grown plants to produce more useful nutrients by copying t
Re: (Score:2)
I've only been doing this for a couple od decades. I'm sure that this will be good.
The USPTO explicitly disagrees with you [uspto.gov] ("35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define 'things' or 'products' while the first category defines 'actions' (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be
Re: (Score:2)
I like your thinking.
Maybe everyone, say at primary school, should be compelled to sign a legal document saying, "I agree that I have been contaminated by exposure to the works of Nature, and therefore any derivative work that I ever create may be the property of Nature".
Re: (Score:2)
It's not plagiarism [utk.edu] when you cite your sources.
Re: (Score:2)
"Only please always to call it 'research.'"
Re: Prior art (Score:1)
I used to work for Amgen, the largest botech company. What they usually do is patent the genomic sequence for use as a âoehybridization probeâ. For those who are not familiar with genetic engineering technologies, suffices to say this type of patent is enough to prevent anyone from doing any kind of research and development related to that genomic sequence, ergo the gene containing it and the encoded gene product (protein, RNA) without paying royalties to the company.
It's dumbass things like gene patents (Score:2)
That lead to the only appropriate response being "yeah, whatever"
followed by "I'll just set up my research or company on a beautiful carribean island."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Prior art (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the underlying legal principle is something like this:
"You can patent anything that you can make money from".
Because then you will have spare money to give to legislators, politicians, officials, judges, prosecutors, patent attorneys, etc.
And that's the whole ecosystem right there.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to know what it does.
Ah, that's interesting. Does it mean you need to know *everything* that it does - or only just one thing?
If the former, you can never be sure you do know everything it does.
And if the latter, that's such a trivial requirement it's meaningless. E.g "gene B keeps genes A and C apart".
That's US law. Can't patent genes in US. Germany (Score:2)
That's precisely why genes can't be patented in the United States. In the US, one can't patent natural phenomenon, nor "the laws of nature" (the laws of physics etc) because those can only be *discovered*, not invented. BASF is in Germany.
Btw the fact that "the laws of nature" aren't patentable in the US is the bit of law that disinformation blogs use to trick their readers, and pretend that anything that uses math is unpatentable. "The laws of nature" includes not just gravity, but also "the laws of mathem
Re: (Score:2)
besides that what does it meant to patent a gene. Don't gene's have multiple variants. how do you know one gene is sufficiently like another to infringe? can I patent all genes that produce fatty acids? I mean copywrite would seem more appropriate ( as it is used for code and art ).
Does any one know what these patents actually cover. Is the gene or is it something like 'the method to identify the gene'. Or the 'method to replicate' the gene.
I fail to see how anyone can patent something they did not in
Re: (Score:2)
"Does any one know what these patents actually cover. "
That was the old U.S. rule i.e., you could patent it if you knew what it did. Now, you're kinda out of luck.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Some things shouldn't be patented. We nearly lost WW1 due to airplane patents.
We should have placed a patent on Nuclear Weapons. That would have prevented Kim getting them.
Oh Ra! (Score:1)
Semper Fi!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Chonology (Score:3)
1920's - Yay! Revolution of the proletariat! Peasants and farmers rule the land at last! Down with feudal industry!
1930's - Oh crap Japan is kicking our ass. Maybe some industry is needed after all...
1940's - Yay! Industrial revolution! Let's convert all the farms into foundries!
1950's - Oh crap I guess we do need to grow food. Cultural revolution! We must purge the impure elements to finish the revolution!
1960's - Oh I guess you can't eat culture. Hey Soviets, little help here? Yes? No?
1970's - Hey US, how
Re: (Score:2)
BASF, we love to make you smile. BASF, just do it.
The Right to Breed (Score:4, Interesting)
Why am I reminded of this:
The Right to Read by Richard Stallman
This article appeared in the February 1997 issue of Communications of the ACM (Volume 40, Number 2).
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy... [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What about that SCOTUS decision? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I recall a uninamous SCOUTS ruling that states that naturally occurring genetic sequences cannot be patented. Shouldn't this apply to this case?
FTF:
In the past, cases about patenting genes have reached the highest courts. In a unanimous ruling of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court displayed a willingness to combat the corporate patenting of DNA, asserting unanimously that snippets of human DNA cannot be patented.
For areas beyond national jurisdiction like the high seas, though, there is currently little legal precedent to draw on—“very patchwork legislation,” Blasiak says. The Nagoya Protocol, ratified by 97 parties and in force as of 2014, attempted to lay out a system of standards for monetizing biodiversity within national jurisdictions. But applying that protocol to the high seas isn’t really feasible, says University of California at Los Angeles environmental law scholar James Salzman, because the open ocean is jurisdiction-less.
So with BASF owning ocean life, and Bayer buying Monsanto and owning plant life . . . it looks like German chemical companies are getting close to cornering the market for life on this planet.
So . . . y'all best be learning German . . . nicht wahr?
Re: (Score:2)
For areas beyond national jurisdiction like the high seas, though, there is currently little legal precedent to draw on—“very patchwork legislation,” Blasiak says.
But patent litigation happens in national courts. SCOTUS decision means the US DNA patents are invalid in a US court. And since they are US patents, they are also invalid in a non US court.
Perhaps BASF/Monsanto plans to lobby legislators to make the patent legal after they purchased it? It seemed to be the strategy for software patent in EU at some time.
Obviously! That's what patents are for (Score:1)
Patents exist to encourage research, development, inventing new things, and sharing that knowledge instead of keeping it a secret. Researching whale genes costs money, so if there were no patents then either the company would keep its discoveries locked in a safe or anyone would be able to freely leech off of them.
Patenting the obvious is a separate issue.
When a boy whale and girl whale get together... (Score:3)
So, now when a boy whale and a girl whale get together... do they need a license? can they be sued?
Exclusive rights for research and development? NO! (Score:3)
Please understand what a patent protection provides, and what not.
A patent only prevents the commercial exploitation of the protected patent topic by competitors. It explicitly does *not* prevent *anybody* from studying and researching the patent matter, even with the explicit aim to circumvent the patent, to understand the issue beyond what is disclosed in the patent, or the commercialization of development results designed to avoid the patent matter.
Re: (Score:2)
There is something fishy about this. (Score:2)
N/T.
$DECIDERS to be keel-hauled (Score:2)
So, are they going to sue those $MARINE_LIFE when they reproduce?
It is seriously f*cked up that patents would be granted on discoveries instead of inventions.
Oh, "a company" -> BASF is not exactly an unknown. Far from it.
BASF Slogan (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember hearing this a lot from my TV over the past few years: "WE DON'T MAKE A LOT OF THE PRODUCTS YOU BUY. WE MAKE A LOT OF THE PRODUCTS YOU BUY BETTER." That was the BASF slogan for a lot of years. It certainly takes on new meaning with this article.
BASF, we don't make the whales in the sea; we just watch them screw each other.
... For Twenty Years, or So, Depending on Where (Score:2)
These patents only exist for a limited amount of time, and then they expire. In the United States, I think this is at most twenty years.
The article doesn't mention expiration, or limited duration. Those are limits on the "ownership" this (evil) corporation has over the "heritage of mankind" after they spend $$$ sequencing genes and coming up with a novel use for that genetic material.
Doesn't this also depend on where you live, and what courts decided to uphold which patents? I remember reading about how a l
Re: (Score:2)
after they spend $$$ sequencing genes and coming up with a novel use for that genetic material.
First of all, gene sequencing has become pretty cheap over the last few decades. And I didn't see where they came up with a novel use and based a patent on that. It appears that they are taking an entire genome and sitting on it to block others from developing products.
Now here's an interesting idea: When I patent some gizmo, I have to describe what each part does in the patent claims. Does BASF have to describe the function of each part of the DNA sequence? If not, how is the patent claim valid?
I didn't know that (Score:3)
Marines have their own genes, and they're patented?
Re: (Score:1)
Oorah!
You can only patent "art." (Score:2)
In the US, plant and animal patents apply to breeds and sequences that you created as variations from the natural. Does German law allow companies to put legal dibs on purely natural gene sequences?
Prior art (Score:3)
Is this where God sues on the basis of prior art?
Re: (Score:3)
Is this where God sues on the basis of prior art?
God is fairly new, he is predated by countless other divine creators. The reason God doesn't perform miracles anymore is that he was sued by Nammu. Nammu claimed prior art at having created the earth and sent God a cease and desist letter.
Oh the horrors (Score:2)
You realize so much has been documented on so many species genes is because of the patentability, right?
We would be nowhere near here without it, and almost certainly still would not be by the time the patents would have expired.
BASF??? (Score:2)
I remember them being suppliers of some of the more high-end cassette tapes in Soviet Union back in 80s! :)
How things changed...
Paul B.
BASF is THE largest chemical company in world (Score:2)
BASF is not just "a German chemical company", it is THE largest chemical manufacturer in the world, and it's well-known
It is also one of remaining parts of IG Farben concern (of Zyklon B fame), together with Bayer (who purchased Monsanto of Agent Orange and GMO fame).
There already is A LOT of power in A FEW global companies. SF writers were right in their observations from 60 years ago.
Patent on what grounds? (Score:2)
How is this even possible? How can you patent it before you know what those genes do (even if you think that they should be patentable in the first place). It's like someone patenting random shapes of wood because they might figure out if they're gears some day.
Re:What company is it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but IG-Farben was taken apart 1950 by the West Allies: that's what I meant by "spin off". OTOH you're right in that BASF is one of the bigger turds coming out of that -- the other is Bayer, which now has Evil Monsanto embedded in its cytoplasma).
To note that they got an especially friendly treatment after the war, due to their strong ties to Exxon (!) and DuPont.
Spawn of the devil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
... intellectual property of a company called Baden Aniline and Soda Factory (BASF)
BASF are actually the worlds largest chemical producer, with revenues (2017) of $75 billion USD and operations around the globe.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Better change your password, dude.