DNA Code - IP or Public Domain? 247
Anonymous Coward writes "A British trust has warned Celera Genomics that data from Human DNA should remain in the public domain to maximize benefits for medical research. Celera is about to patent DNA structures after decoding about one third of the human genome.
The Wellcome Trust is leading moves to stop the information becoming the private property of corporations.
" Celera has been brute-forcing structures, enabling them to beat The Human Genome Project to the punch - and are filing for 6000 patents. Please contact the Wellcome Trust to indicate your support of them. Patent attempts like Celera's stifle scientific progress.Update: 10/26 10:00 by H :Thanks to net_shaman for the pointer to a similar article in The Washington Post.
FARCE! (Score:1)
Re:Patent an existing creation? (Score:2)
"And when were you born sir?"
"April 3, 1942"
"And did you have blue eyes then?"
"yes"
" I submit to the court your honour that this gentleman had blue eyes before the filing date of the, 'blue eyed patent'."
Oh yeah? (Score:1)
Did you mean 'hacker' or 'cracker'?
Do you know the diffrence? I don't think you do.
Ooops (Score:1)
I was thinking about fully approved patents rather than jrg's very important post (score it up!) about provisional patent applications.
I do hope he's right about the very high threshold for proving utility, because exactly as he says: this is what costs the time and the money (and the blood, sweat and tears) now.
To discover the make-up of a protein, with a sequence of a previously unknown type, which blocks incoming self-destruct signals inside the cell, and then to prove beyond doubt that this is what the sequence does, as jrg's team did -- that seems to me a lot more impressive than just going through data automatically, and identifying everything that looks like something somebody else has seen before.
Which is why I don't think the latter should be enough even to get provisional pre-emptive patent rights.
Re:What the Patents Do (Score:1)
Re:How do you patent found data? (Score:2)
No, that's prior art. You didn't invent the rain forest or the fungus; you just found it. What you can patent is the process by which you transform the raw fungus into the cancer-curing medicine
The genes already exist! IMHO, that should constitute prior "art". What, IMHO, should be patentable is the transferance process by which you make the more desirably commercial properties.
This would be entirely patentable. You have invented a process to improve the efficiency. Furthermore, it is an original and non-obvious process. But I don't really see what this has to do with your first two examples, or genetics.
Re:Ooops (Score:1)
Funny you should mention the automatic data analysis because I do some of that now, having moved entirely out of the lab and fully into computational biology/bioinformatics. In this case, I feel there are merits to obtaining provisional applications based only on computational evidence. You don't simply have to rely on strict sequence homology, but you can use HMMs, motifs, and any number of other computatioanl methods to try to identify a putative function for a novel gene. Note that this is for the provisional application only and it must be backed up within a year with actual "proof" for the application to proceed. Also note that the above mentioned patent is a continuation of previous ones that we filed when we did not yet have a full length clone, but we did know a good amount about its biology...
There is simply way too much data for laboratories to keep up with--the only feasible method of sorting it out is to analyze it computationally to try to categorize novel into genes into existing families and thus have a narrower focus when it comes time to prove your prediction with actual cellular biology experiments. Helps to save time, effort, and money.
james
Re:Can the human race really be *this* stupid? (Score:1)
In other words, appearance is an easy way to get a sample of the quality of the rest of the genome.
"We have you surrounded!" (Score:1)
Re:Wrong wrong.. (Score:1)
Unsurprisingly, that's exactly what the public Human Genome Project is doing. Wellcome Trust, by the way, is putting their money where their mouth is; they fund the Sanger Centre [sanger.ac.uk] which is doing part of the HGP work (along with several sites in the US).
Disclaimer: I work at one of the US sites, but I'm not a biologist, just a sysadmin. The head of my center compares patenting the human genome to patenting the periodic table; yeah, that would have really boosted chemistry....
Re:Lied to congress? (Score:1)
Venter was head of TIGR, and all of TIGR's sequenced genomes are freely available (see http://www.tigr.org), so I really doubt Venter would stop scientific access to any of the human genome, but commercial use I'm sure will be a different matter. The issue isn't about whether Venter will hide the data from the scientific community but whether other companies will be able to use the data without paying huge fees.
Re:Another point of view (Score:1)
"The electric light is pure information"
Re:What gene patents look like (Score:1)
Yes, this is true though they're using more than simple sequence homology when they have it. Plus, they have a big effort to obtain the actual physical entity: a full length cDNA clone (this can be a very difficult and very costly undertaking). But I think it's OK since they do have to back it up with "proof" within a year or so. I'm sure they'll let the vast majority of the applications lapse. Of course, I could be wrong.
It should also be noted that other companies can work on the same clone up until the time that the actual patent issues. Or so I've been lead to believe.
james
Re:How do you patent found data? (Score:1)
If you can establish that such a "product" has a practical use -- because you have established what the gene does -- then by law the USPTO must grant your application.
One question is whether the law should be changed to specifically make unpatentable the unnatural physical expression of natural DNA sequences. But encouraging Congress to micromanage what is and is not patentable might not be desirable; or easy; or even constitutional.
Re:Patents vs. Trade secrets. (Score:1)
No. Absolutely not.
With trade secrets nobody can know about your process. Nobody can research around it. Nobody can be inspired by it to extend the art still further.
Encouraging trade secrets would be like going back to mediaeval guilds, or the ignorance of the dark ages.
Re:Bad idea (Score:1)
Bruce McCollough, Kids in the Hall
Don't forget the Public Effort (Score:1)
effort as well. The publically funded effort has
sequenced *more* of the human genome than Celera
currently and is due to (and is on course for)
finishing it to Celera's standards in Spring 2000 - yup - only a couple of months away.
We also have a better grasp of what to do with
it as well (I should know - I write alot of the
software that people use for this).
Celera is making big noise because they are going
to have to rethink their business plan (a weird
effect of the public effort is to make celera
more possessive of their supposed IP).
I think DNA Sequence patents should be allowed
under extremely restrictive terms and with a very
short expiry time (ie, 4 years).
Re:patented DNA (Score:1)
??? (Score:1)
How can anyone patent the structure of nature?
This should not work (Score:3)
I know the patent office disagrees, as they freely allow people to patent genes, but that is a clear violation of the patent concept and those people who allowed it should be shown the door. The sad thing is, the only door they're likely to be shown is the one to their new office, as they get to be promoted.
On the religious side (yes, there is an aspect to this that's definitely non-tech), we are approaching the end of the millenium. A flashpoint for several of the world's largest religions, all of which have bloody histories. Patenting something they claim ownership of could be just the trigger we DON'T need. I'd rather NOT be burned at the stake, because some company wanted to cash in on the gene-mapping craze, thank you very much.
Then, it would be an impossible patent to enforce. Yes, you can enforce the means of mapping, but that is VERY different from enforcing the genetic code itself. It'd be impossible to monitor for natural infringement (which WOULD count, as patents count against identical or similar inventions, even when no actual copying took place), and impossible to prove an absence of prior art. (You can't scan the DNA of every living person, let alone everyone who's died in the past 100,000 years.)
US Patents (Score:4)
When you file for a patent in the US for anything including genome maps, you must publicly disclose it entirely within 2 years for patent protection.
Disclosure includes printed publications and/or a publicly accessible database. The US govt is then required to hold the information back for up to 3 years (usually less).
Now unless I'm mistaken, this means that you can go to IBM's little patent server instead of paying them for the information, though this might be considered illegal if you reprint it without permission.
Now in 1992 the NIH (National Institutes of Health) tried to patent several gene fragments and the PTO sent a rejection notice back to them immediately.
In 1997, the PTO said that it would allow expressed sequence tags (ESTs) to be patented. Now, ESTs are DNA sequences made up to a few hundred base pairs in length that can be used to identify the expression of specific genes.
As far as I'm considered, DNA is nothing more than the source code of life and should fall under the same catagory as algorithms when it comes to patents.
Now, patenting the effects of the new DNA is something entirely different. Should you be able to patent the method of replacing a specific sequence of old DNA with your particular new DNA sequences in order to change something, for example to change hair color in humans?
--
Dirty dealings, but they may well yet fall through (Score:2)
There have been rumblings from within the US govt, since Celera told a Senate Committee that it was planning to make its results freely available; it seems likely from the statements made by various people closely involved that these patents are unlikely to be considered legally defensible.
But in any case, Celera Genomics are guilty of some pretty reprehensible behaviour for the sake of extorting a quick buck...
NP
Re:What a misuse of the patent laws! (Score:1)
We should just remind them that God invented DNA and those patents have long since expired.
Copyright vs. Patents (Score:2)
If this is what they're saying they'd be talking about copyright, not patents.
Grrrrrrrrr... (Score:1)
Re:Uniquiness? (Score:1)
Re:capitalism (Score:1)
If you have discovered that the presence of those specific numbers have made the paper uniquely useful for some purpose which was previously quite unknown, what is so unreasonable about allowing it to be patentable product ?
Patenting an algorithm does not reflect the work of a company
Arithmetic Coding reflected the brilliance and hard work of Rissanen. If IBM had the good sense to employ him and support his work, don't they deserve the reward on that investment ? And won't it encourage other companies to maintain fundamental research ?
Patents do encourage investment. And patents do reduce trade secrecy. The important thing is to reward only what is genuinely new and non-trivial, and what is identifiably useful.
Re:What the Patents Do (Score:1)
However.
I would think if someone came up with something such as a cure for AIDS or cancer or diabetes, you would see public demand it, and while I won't say it's certain that no company would do that, no company that ever wanted to produce another product after someone had reverse engineered their product and created a generic would take the actions you've suggested.
Re:It's just not that simple.... (Score:1)
-"Socrates himself is particularly missed
a lovely little thinker, but a bugger when
he's pissed."
Re:Patents vs. Trade secrets. (Score:2)
> process.
Wrong, with trade secrets, two groups can know about it.
1. Those willing to sign a NDA.
2. Those capable of reinventing it theselves.
The effect of patents is to exclude the second group.
Patents are a form for legal lobotomy. It denies people the right to utilize their own ideas.
Re:How do you patent found data? (Score:1)
Ok. How about: The DNA exists. People are overweight. You find out that this particular string of base pairs is related to obesity. Should you be able to patent this to reserve the right to specifically treat obesity by gene therapy?
Re:Good afternoon (Score:1)
Patent an existing creation? (Score:2)
------------
Re:Good afternoon (Score:1)
"French people piss me off..."
Eric Cartman
PATENT? (Score:1)
Re:"Discovery of new information" thoughts (Score:1)
Technically, the isolated genes are patented as new compositions of matter.
Will K Mart sell organs? (Score:1)
You can go to the meat market and get a new one
any time you like. Just think, we can live any
way we want to. Drink gallons of alcohol every
day. New liver is just a click away on eOrgans.com!
Ain't this a great time to be alive!
Re:Slightly offtopic but related (Score:1)
Oh shoot, do I infringe? (Score:3)
Patenting DNA structures could lead to a whole new form of lawsuit. Since certain aspects of DNA structures are randomly determined (both through mutation and combination during sexual reproduction), it could be possible for anyone to infringe just by living.
I think that's pretty absurd.
"Oh, I'm sorry, we just got the patent on the gene which gives you blue eyes. We felt it was novel because of how it changes the pigment which colors the eye. License the patent or die."
Granted, I doubt that's their intentions. I can see patenting certain processes for building DNA strands, and perhaps even processes for integrating modified DNA within existing tissue. But patenting the DNA patterns themselves is like trying to patent any of nature's creations.
--Joe--
Legal Rights? (Score:1)
I'm curious what legal outlets we have if a company does suceed in patenting genes -- is there a court of appeals for the patent office? Can a law be passed that invalidates certain patents?
Agreed (Score:1)
Does this type of patent mean that I won't own the rights to my own blood cells' basic information? That would be scary. Maybe it's not that extreme yet, but never underestimate a corporate entity when it comes to chasing "The Almighty Buck" no matter what the cost in individual freedom.
Re:Patent an existing creation? (Score:3)
When one files a provisional patent application on a gene, one is not applying for a patent on the gene itself, but rather on a _use_ for that gene. For example, "gene_x for use in treating osteoporosis." You then usually have a year to prove your claims by providing data or at least showing that you are actively working on it rather than just sitting on it. If another company or academic institution finds that gene_x is actually involved in cancer, then they can pursue gene_x for use in treating cancer and you're SOL (shit outta luck).
The key is proving utility and this is why ESTs are unpatentable en masse. The patent office has set a very high threshold for proving utility when it comes to biotech patents; I've personally had to field questions from patent examiners and they can be brutal--for good reason: now that cDNA and sequencing technologies are so ubiquitous, pretty much anyone can generate sequence data, but not everyone can prove utility; proving utility requires time and money and, in most cases, innovation. A provisional application is as they say, "a stake in the ground" showing that you were here first--you identified this gene and you think it is involved in process X. If you can prove this, the patent may be issued to you.
I personally feel that the genome should be open source (and it will be), but I do feel that people who mine the data in clever ways and find interesting things should have legal protection for their discoveries. And let's face it: many drugs on the market are there due to the research of for-profit companies (they have bigger resources, harder timelines, etc. than academia) usually in collaboration with academia. If companies cannot profit on drugs they discover, then I wonder how much the rate of discovery of new drugs for treating diseases will decrease...
As for the whole Celera deal...I don't understand what people are getting so huffy about. I've spoken to Ventner and Celera and they've always planned to release the entire genome to the public, gratis. True, they aren't going to release it as soon as they get it (nor will they release all the work and analysis they've done on it), but the sequence itself will be released. Nothing they do with it will prevent academics from doing research...it may simply limit what other companies can do. It may be a moot point though since Celera at one point did get some DOE funding and this might make the United States Government a co-applicant of these patents. Co-applicants can make any patented claims public domain and the USG is likely to do this depending on how it all works out.
That's my 2 cents on a very complicated issue,
james
What a load of bullshit (Score:1)
If these guys get their patents, then I say it's time to take the whole patent office down in flames. When it comes to human genetics, there can be NO tolerance for attempts like this. How can mankind be free when their genetic codes have been filed, patented, copyrighted and trademarked?
How about be put those terminator genes into our newly genemodified children next? If they want kids, they have to renew the contract we made with that genetics company....
Excuse me sir, but did you pay your Green Eyes taxes today?
And I thought Microsoft was a threat.
What gene patents look like (Score:2)
http://patent. womplex.ibm.com/details?&pn=US05968742__&s_clms=1# clms [ibm.com]
http://patent. womplex.ibm.com/details?&pn=US05962262__&s_clms=1# clms [ibm.com]
It would be nice if a real biochemist could confirm it; but it looks to me as if the only genuine new knowledge in the each patent is the sequence information in Claim 1, and an identification that this sequence looks homologous to some other sequence we already know. The remaining claims then reflect the application of standard biochemical techniques, which make the sequence useful.
To be fair, there might be clues in the image pages and the prior art, which I haven't read; but I was struck by the very generic statement in the abstract, "The invention also provides methods for the prevention and treatment of diseases associated with expression of GPI-2h, as well as diagnostic assays". It's not clear (at least to me) that the authors definitely know that any diseases actually are associated with expression of GPI-2h.
People who try to pull this stuff should be shot (Score:1)
Sick, I know, but I wouldn't mind putting a bullet through some of these people's heads. Not that I would if I had the opportunity though....
Everything we are comes from our DNA! Noone has the right (I'm not talking legally, legal be damned) to have exclusive rights to anything having anything to do with the makeup of our entire existence!
Just my opinion
Re:capitalism, and sequencing progress (Score:1)
> research has every right to protect its
> intellectual property by any means neccessary.
Well, surely that depends on what the result is?
Having spent money on something doesn't automatically give
you rights to something you don't own in the first place.
The usual ground for granting patent rights is that
you've invented something. There's nothing self-evident
about this : it was introduced on purely pragmatic grounds.
Discoveries have not historically been protected like this,
and to the extent that they might become so, it's happening
by creeping extension rather than as a result of considered
decision-making. The argument that the amount of work going
into it means that these sequences should be treated as
inventions is rejected by a large majority of those working
in the field - and let's not forget that these others have
done a lot more work than Celera. The belief that a "gene"
is an invented intellectual construct entirely separate from
the sequence is believed equally specious. It's believed to be
very possible that these patents will be struck down by the
courts on these grounds, but there's no certainty in that.
Another point worth remembering is that Celera haven't actually done
anything as dramatic as they imply : their press release states that they've
sequenced 1.2 billion bases, in 40 days. That's 30 million a day, which at
roughly 500 useful bases per sample, comes to 60,000 lanes a day. Using
96-tube 3700s, that's about 600 runs a day. In theory they could manage
over 2000 : clearly their production scale-up is nowhere near complete. At the
moment, the various members of the Human Genome Consortium are still probably
outsequencing them quite comfortably.
IIRC they aim to reach at least 30 billion bases sequenced - 10-times coverage
of the genome : it's going to take them a while yet to get there. And then they
have a large assembly job to do, which is in itself not a trivial task.
Beating the gov't to the punch (Score:1)
Re:It's just not that simple.... (Score:4)
A discovery can reasobaly considered IP in some situations, and so can a description.
Yes, but there are three legal forms of IP: patents, trademarks and copyrights. You just can't say "it's valid IP, therefore they can patent it". Trademarks are just plain offtopic here, so I'll talk about the other two.
They could easily justify copyrighting their information packages (and probably are doing so). They charge for the information, and the copyright keeps the people they send it to from redistributing it legally, except for fair use.
They're talking about patenting it. Patenting genes has gone on for a while, particularly in agricultural circles. If you patent a gene, nobody can USE the gene without a license. You buy a bag of genetically altered seed, part of what you are paying for is the license to use the patent on those genes. Here, they are making two big jumps from "mainstream" genetic patents:
* it's human genes now
* it's naturally occuring genes now
People are hopefully going to be more outraged now that we are messing with human genes. On the other hand, it's the second part that makes it more legally outraged. You should never be able to patent a discovery. Patents are for inventions, for novel ways of applying things. I might as well patent the oak tree outside my window, there's a lot of information there, it must be IP.
----
its been done already (Score:1)
If a patent is administered badly (eg the GIF technology mugging) then this is a bad thing. People won't want to use technology if they expect to get a letter saying "you used our technology - pay us $x or desist".
GIF is an example of a patent that was used right then went bad. The technology was patented, but was opened up to allow people to use. If research was patented this way this would the ok. But there is always the fear when using patented technology that your idea will be lost if the patent is suddenly enforced.
For research nothing should be patented - allow everyone access to use the data or technology.
Patenting DNA is A Very Bad Thing. If you have, for example, a resistance to AIDS, you could suddenly find that your DNA had been patented against your knowledge. Worse still, under existing law there is no way that you can stop this.
Patents for inventions are ok, but patenting nature is a bad thing.
Real simple. I'll steal the genome...FSCK them!!! (Score:1)
Wrong way round. (Score:2)
No. The Patent system was introduced to promote innovation and creativity, full stop. It was considered that people would not be able to spend years working on new things if there was no way to get a reward at the end, so patents were set up so that the discovery was made public at once, but that the discoverer had commercial rights for a while so they could recoup their losses.
Things have been rather altered in recent times, in favour of business and away from the public domain.
A late-breaking story (Score:1)
In a similar case, SuperHyperGlobalNet has filed an international patent for the human sexual reporoduction process.
"We plan to license the technology to prospective families for a small fee," says SHGN CEO Bob Babimaker. "As it stands, we are looking at a very large revenue stream from countries such as India and China."
Babimaker acknowledges, that accounting will be a problem, especially in cases where application of the process does not directly result in a new human life.
"We've worked out deals with mattress and car manufacturers to have sensors installed which detect a 'rocking' motion. We feel this will cover 90% of the cases in the US, Europe, and Japan. For the rest of the world we plan to employ infrared imaging."
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is reportedly planning his own patent to a competing process. Although details have not been disclosed, insider rumors indicate the process is long and painful, and the participants are forced to restart several times before they get anywhere.
Re:I think this would violate "prior art" :) (Score:1)
Re:Patents vs. Trade secrets. (Score:1)
Exactly. They're not "inventing" anything here that they need to protect, just learning how something in nature works. Patenting human genes is the equivalent of patenting the laws of physics - just because you discovered them doesn't give you the right to prevent anyone else from doing the same.
You should be able to patent something you create, but NOT something you discovered.
If they want something to patent to make money, they should spend the time working on faster ways to decode DNA and determine the effects of genes, not trying to beat others to the genes themselves.
---
Re:missed opportunities throughout the ages... (Score:1)
:)
~m
Re:What the Patents Do (Score:1)
Company A discoveres a cure for /blank/ (cancer, AIDS, whatever you like). A patents the gene sequence change that cures it. Now A revelas to the world that they have this and would like $1000 a pop for it, and, oh yeah, when you get it, it only lasts a month, then something they introduced changes it back to the way it was.
And now what? That one company holds the cure to something in it's hand and can pick and chose who gets it. Or even worse, figure out a cure for a engineered disease they release, and basically hold the world hostage (with a sufficiently good coverup).
Not that this is at all like certain things in other realms (*cough* computers *cough* microsoft) right now.
-Jonathan
Bastard claim jumpers, why not patent water? (Score:1)
Since DNA extracted from a lifeform is a naturally occurring chemical, filing a claim on future use of such DNA chains is as valid as laying a claim on water or salt.
It think it's safe to say, at this point, that the USPO needs to get its ass out of its head.
Yabbut (Re:You can't patent nature.) (Score:1)
That argument could be extended to say that everything is nature, so nothing can be patented: Mankind is a species of animal that evolved naturally, so our existence, and all its consequences, i.e., everything we do, are naturally-occurring phenomena. Try this: aren't microchips part of nature? They're made out of sand, after all, even though it takes all sorts of machines to turn the sand into the microchips, but then the machines are made by people, who are in turn part of nature, right?
This is vacuous, of course, because when a term is defined so broadly it loses its meaning. If you say that all phenomena are natural, because there is no other kind, then the distinction between something being a "natural phenomenon", an "artificial phenomenon", or just a plain "phenomenon" disappears. While this is technically true, it does not accomplish anything -- the point of the term is to distinguish between those phenomena that occur without the intervention of mankind / technology and those that only occur when we cause them. Quibbling over whether or not our causing them makes them any less "natural" is beside the point.
Now, I definitely agree that patenting genes is an extremely problematic area, but I'm not sure the "Aren't genes nature?" argument is much help. Also, I am very skeptical of the USPTO's competence, in view of all the recent messes with software patents, but I am encouraged by this passage from the post above yours (emphasis added):
3.In order for DNA sequences to be distinguished from their naturally occurring counterparts, which cannot be patented, the patent application must state that the invention has been purified or isolated or is part of a recombinant molecule or is now part of a vector.
Assuming it really works this way, this should take care of problems with the companies claiming that their patents apply to people. I don't have much of a problem with companies owning genes that they really did invent, as long as there is a very sharp distinction between these and "naturally-occurring" (see above) genes. At least this would seem to prevent the equivalent of a "QuickSort patent", e.g., someone patenting blue eyes and claiming that I owe them royalties.
Supposing that they could make a "patch" that could be applied to your genes, e.g., to change your eye color, then it would be reasonable for them to demand a one-time royalty when you buy the modification, provided that then you would fully own that copy, with no "this license may be terminated..." clause. Passing the gene on to your own offspring in the conventional manner would have to be considered "fair use", as would cloning oneself, though reverse-engineering it from a tissue sample through technological means would not.
A natural duration of gene patents would be one full generation, i.e., until a person has been born possessing the gene naturally, to parents also possessed it from birth. Then a reasonable compromise would be for the license to prohibit reverse-engineering while the patent was valid, after which time it would enter the public domain (so to speak).
David Gould
Re:Lets keep human DNA open source! (Score:1)
Ah, I see. You want the government to study your DNA, right?
Kaa
...But this cat is ugly and it smells bad. (Score:1)
True. There are lots of patented plasmids out there, and you have to pay lots of companies lots of $$ to use them in your experiments. Take taq polymerase, for example. Used by every molecular biologist in the world, and the patent is owned by one company. This is part of the problem. Because of patents like this, the barrier to entry for molecular research is much higher ($100 per tube of taq?) and there is actually a lowered incentive to do this research. Not good.
"Knowing the sequence isn't the power...knowing what a specific sequence does in different contexts and whether it can be used to control other genes is the major application here."
Not acccording to US Patent Law. If you can successfully patent the sequence to a gene, you own the rights to all applications of that gene. I don't see how this gives researchers incentive to do anything now besides hording gene sequences as quickly as possible.
"You don't argue that maps are copyrighted right? they deserve it for doing all the work and as long as the price is reasonable its fair"
Indeed. Maps may be COPYRIGHTED, but they can't be PATENTED. You can patent a novel, useful, unobvious way of constructing a map, but you cant patent the map information itself. This is how gene patents are fundamentally different than maps.
If researchers were patenting the methods they use to subclone DNA fragments and obtain the sequence information, more power to them. They aren't doing that, however. Instead, they're patenting the data they obtain, which they neither invented nor put work into. That's just plain screwy and exploitative.
"The public needs to educate itself quite a bit because right now it is easy to start "scares" about this sort of thing."
And thank [deity] for that. Its about time that people realized the danger represented by the profiteers at companies like Celera. If Celera et al. want to patent new drugs based on these sequences, then great, but they should be required to do some actual work before being rewarded with de facto monopolies on vital research information.
Re:Hey theres something scary to think about... (Score:1)
Your post could be so much more easily deciphered if it had been written properly. Is it not easier to read this:
Isn't the item that is being enhanced partially owned by the person who owns the patent? So, really, they could come back and say that YOUR kids are not ALL yours!! Not only that, but if you had modifications made and were not able to pay for them (after the child was born) then they could REPO your kids..
Is it really that much of a burden to type the extra two characters, that your meaning becomes clear to your fellow man? I had to read your statement a couple of times because I kept stumbling over "ur", gestalting it into "our".
Sheesh...
--Corey
Re:Lied to congress? (Score:1)
This is all postulating of course, there's no information on what was really patented.
Re:Hey theres something scary to think about... (Score:1)
Re:How do you patent found data? (Score:1)
DNA and genes are way beyond my area of expertise, but to me the genes themselves already exist and so aren't patentable. The techniques involved in the gene therapy may very well be patentable though. Again, I know nothing about what is involved. I imagine some molecular machine counting down the rungs of the DNA, doing a snip and inserting a benign segment of DNA. The molecular machine should be patentable for that application.
Re:capitalism (Score:2)
No they don't. You can't go around shooting people for violating copyright, you can't drop poison gas in a Hong Kong market to take out sellers of pirated CDs, etc. You can only do what the law allows. And you can only protect what the law allows you to protect.
The alternative to patent is trade secret information hidden from EVERYONE.
You mean everyone you don't have a contractual agreement with. Part of that contractual agreement would be serious damages if the secret is leaked. *This* is the way for companies to protect secret -- but not innovative, which is a requirement for patents -- discoveries.
Re:It's just not that simple.... (Score:2)
Actually what Celera is interested in is the small variations in the entire sequence that make us all different from each other. These variations (SNIPs - single nucleotide polymorphisms) are expecially important in the sphere of drug metabolizing enzymes. Some people burn up all their ibuprofen, aspirin, or chemotherapy reigimens at rates that differ from the slower metabolizers. This is determined by the alleles that we inherit from our parents.
Information pertaining to the variability of metabolic rates of drugs both old and new are testable with gene chips and patients. This is where the money will be made from, selling/patenting the information needed to make the gene chip usefull to drug companies and hospitals.
In general, sequence is useless in the bussiness world unless you can profit from it.
What the Patents Do (Score:5)
If you actually look at a gene patent [usda.gov], you`ll see that what`s patented is the isolated form of the gene, not the gene in the context of the genome - along with methods for purifying and assaying the resulting protein. What is not covered in this patent is the gene in situ. So people with blue eyes, or whatever, needn`t get worried. The gene in your body isn`t patented. What`s worrying is the idea that because a company is patenting so much, it`ll be years before they get round to looking at some of the genes, some of which could be useful either in terms of finding out more about the way humans work, or in terms of finding cures for inherited disorders. The company can sit on the gene, safe in the knowledge that, because it`s patented, no-one else is going to research it until they`re ready.
The thing is, this gene patenting idea is fairly recent. But these days, academics, too, are having to patent their research just in order to prevent their work from being stolen out from under them. This goes completely against the information-sharing ethic that has always been a part of academic science.
So, not quite as scary as the idea of paying royalties to some corporation for your brown hair or strawberry birthmark, but scary nonetheless. Mass patenting of genes is already stifling research. Mass patenting of human genes can only make the problem worse.
Re:This is a good and proper use of patent law (Score:2)
Private industry stepped up to the plate and said that they will finish the task in less time than their overfunded government counterparts. Does anyone here really believe that academia alone would have finished the job?
The reason that Celera has managed to do it so fast is that they are merely churning out the sequences, whereas the academic research labs are actually taking the time to figure out what the genes do. Now, which is the more useful approach?
Possibly a silver lining to this cloud? (Score:2)
Here's what happens: The meme of Ridiculous Patents has entered the public sphere. A huge debate starts over what's fair to patent.
Desirable result: Political change might just happen. The patent system is reformed.
If it takes some greedy biological equivalent of UNISYS to force the public focus onto how the patent system sometimes works as a licence to extort, then this is a good thing. Because only then, will it get changed.
For those interested, here's a good intro... (Score:2)
http://www.funding-first.org/com ment/12/comm2.html [funding-first.org]
-- Moondog
...cats finally out of the bag. (Score:2)
Re:patented DNA (Score:2)
That's not what I said. If one company is given a patent on human genes, then only that company can work with those genes, at least without paying for hugely expensive licensing agreements. If they're in the public domain then any commercial entity can work with them. Now lets see... which route is more likely to result in a cure for AIDS or cancer? That's why I object to patenting of human genes.
Re:its been done already (Score:2)
Slightly offtopic but related (Score:3)
http://abcnews.go. com/sections/us/DailyNews/modelseggs991023.html [go.com]
Or, you can go straight to the website here: http://ronsangels.com [ronsangels.com]
Next up from the site, a sperm auction.
----
they should use copyright to protect their stuff (Score:2)
Patents are no good for protecting the DNA database however. What they could do is patent the method used to collect the data, not the data itself.
The data collection could be protected with copyright. This would enable others to quote it (like you quote a phone book or a book of laws) but would make it illegal for somebody to just copy the entire database.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong about this, if so please point that out.
Pebble Beach copyrighted a tree (Score:2)
In the 70's Pebble Beach Golf Course copyrighted a lone cypress tree that was frequently associated with their image. Their copyright statement [pebblebeach.com] to this day claims copyright on "The Lone Cypress Tree."
They apparently have a sign that says you may take pictures of the tree for personal use, but not for commerical reproduction. Go figure.
Re:It's just not that simple.... (Score:2)
A patent on a gene in general would seem to have a few billion problems with "prior art."
Stupid Slashdot comments (Score:2)
As somebody else phrased it in a question, "Or are they simply saying that if they go to the trouble of describing the genome in a useful way, and packaging it up, that people will have to pay to get that package."
That is precisely what they are doing -- just like although you can't patent gravity you can patent useful descriptions of gravity. The patent will give 17 year exclusivity for those companies to develop products that incorporate said genes such as treatments for genetic diseases.
I now the rest of you think such cures are just going to fall from the sky, but in the real world these things cost tons of money and nobody's going to invest that with out a property right of exclusivity so they can recoup costs and make a profit.
Incompatible hardware (Score:2)
"Doc, I'm having a hard time breathing"
"Thats what you get for buying lungs at Futureshop"
Re:US Patents (Score:2)
Right, that is what they do. They do not patent the actual DNA sequence, but simply an application of the gene.
One of the problems with the gene patents is quite analogous to software patents, in that they are so obvious. For instance, the protein leptin have been believed to regulate metabolism (or something like that) and could therefore be used as obesity-drug. So it was quickly patented and they have tried to make a drug out of it. (I think they basically have failed; It worked on mice but not on humans.)
Now that is a quite obvious application of leptin IMHO, and quite comparable to, say, using bitwise XOR for mouse pointers (AT&T patent for that expired not too long ago).
If it was methods in general, there could be a case for patents, but today they can basically patent information.
Lars
Lars
--
Re:Contacting Celera (Score:2)
recommend to contact the listed contacts
from the whois database instead:
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Peterson, Marshall (MP11039) petersmr@CELERA.COM
(240) 453-3031 (FAX) (240) 453-4375
Billing Contact:
Thompson, Robert (RT6484) thompsrc@CELERA.COM
Re:patented DNA (Score:2)
It's too important to be trusted to a commercial entity. We could be missing out on a cure for cancer or AIDS, bacause the company in question wasn't researching that area, and no-one else would touch the patented bits because it's easier to work on the other bits.
Patenting genes was a nasty kludge to allow companied to recoup R&D costs from times when that much computing power was expensive. It's becoming affordable now, and in a couple of years, no-one will even think about it. I'd rather wait a couple of years for the Human Genome Project to sort out the whole lot than have a company do it all in 4 months but prevent people working on it for the next 20 years.
Re:Lied to congress? (Score:2)
But what the heck is he actually trying to patent? The Human Genome? That's just information. It's not a process, it's not a technique, it's not a thing as such. That's like me trying to patent a dictionary. Not the actual book, but the information contained in there.
It just doesn't make much sense. He can't be trying to patent the actual information, since he's going to sell it, type of thing.. My guess it that the patents are techniques for gaining the information that they invented and used.. sort of the bruce force methods they discuss in the article..
It'll never mean anything anyway. The genome would leak onto the internet faster than anything. The problem with selling something like that is that you can't prove that someone used your data when the copy gets leaked.
The story is crap, it doesn't make sense, I can't grasp it... argh! I hate badly written stories that don't make any sense!
---
Patenting motion - some questions (Score:2)
Can you though? Assume that Newton discovered gravity and his laws of motion today. What could he have patented?
1. Gravity itself - (hopefully) obviously not. As others have mentioned, there's always been gravity, etc, etc.
2. The descriptions (Gravity is...) - Do the same arguements apply to this as above?
3. His laws of motion. (Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, etc) - Can something like this be patented? Its a "useful description", which is (was) non obvious, but how could you infringe against this? Would someone who made, say, shock absorbers for cars be infringing this patent?
4. The mathematical equations - Since (IIRC) algorithms can be patented, could this be patented? ("A method for determining the force due to gravity between two objects"). Would this mean that anyone who uses this equation have to licence it in the same way RSA needs to be licenced?
5. Newton's cradle - this is obviously a physical thing, which probably could be patented. It can be used to "describe" gravity/forces in an easy-to-understand manner, so could this be patented?
What can be patented about an idea such as this?
Re:Patent an existing creation? (Score:2)
It's a fundamental principle that there can't be "legal tragedies" -- situations in which it is impossible to avoid breaking the law. In cases like these, one or other of the incompatible laws is ruled not to operate in a court. So, if you were (per impossibile) to be an instance of a patented piece of intellectual property, you would not be forced to pay license fees.
Indeed, one would more obviously argue that you have not used any intellectual property at all by being born with blue eyes, since being born is not an intellectual act. If, on the other hand, you carried out gene therapy on yourself (again, I am given to understand, per impossibile), then it is much more arguable whether you would owe (morally and legally) a debt to the man or woman who invented the sequence of actions you would have to carry out to give yourself blue eyes. Patenting a gene gives you the rights of a patent-holder, not a copyright holder.
Don't get me wrong, I'm wholly against gene patents. But it's for practical reasons (they are unnecessary, given the HGP), rather than anything else. I don't see anything intrinsically more repugnant in making them patentable than in having patents on farm equipment so that it can't be sold cheaply to the Third World.
jsm
Sequences, not structures! A complex issue. (Score:3)
What could become A Big Mess (TM) is what a gene patent actually means. It is not difficult to devise a DNA sequence that is different from the wild type that generates the exact same protein, or a slight variant with the same biological function. A bit farther in the future we will have more ways of generating proteins through protein engineering.
But wait, there's more. You can mass-produce the product of a gene without knowing or caring about its sequence or structure. Does the gene patent cover the product of a gene? I realize our patent system in the US is horribly broken but it is my understanding that patents are for specific processes, not for any process that serves a specific goal.
This issue reminds me of the need we have for formalizing defensive patents. A lot of companies issue patents simply to prevent others from doing so, and plan not to profit from them. Celera claims to be doing this, essentially. If there was only a way to guarantee that this were true, and prevent future management from reneging on the promise... then our lives might become a lot easier!
In any case, abusers of this system will eventually be frustrated with the progress of technology, as they are in other areas.
Why the USPTO thinks genes are patentable (Score:5)
This is from a pull-together of summaries by Science Week on gene patenting stories. It is no longer on their site, but is cached on google at
htt p://www.google.com/search?q=cache:9485790&dq=cache :scienceweek.com/arch2.htm [google.com]
The pull-together also includes several other summaries of on-topic stories.
The original article was in Science, 1 May 98 280:689, by John J. Doll (US Government), Director of Biotechnology Examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office
ON THE ADVANTAGES OF DNA PATENTING
In the international community of molecular biologists, a debate has been underway for some time concerning the patenting of DNA. Now John J. Doll (US Government), Director of Biotechnology Examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office presents the following points concerning this issue:
QY: John J. Doll, Technology Center 1600, USPTO, Washington, DC 20231 US.
(Science 1 May 98 280:689) (Science-Week 22 May 98)
For a contrary view, this position paper from the American Society of Human Genetics, on the earlier issue of expressed sequence tags is worth reading:
http://www.faseb.org/genetics/ ashg/policy/pol-08.htm [faseb.org]
How do you patent found data? (Score:5)
Suppose I decode the file format for Microsoft Office 2000? Can I then patent it? I'd love to have Microsoft have to pay me for reverse engineering their work but it doesn't seem realistic.
In the future I can see patenting DNA as a creation: specialized DNA which is the result of some large and expensive research and design process but even then as only a delta to some established DNA. You'd get a patent on the incremental improvement, not on the whole DNA structure.
The patent officers should ask themselves whether it would be appropriate to patent the image of man which would be roughly analogous to patenting its DNA.
Kids will be more expensive (Score:2)
Que? (Score:2)
If that's the case, when will someone pattent the unique hydrogen-oxygen arrangement of water molecules? That being the universal solvent should yield royalties up the wazoo!
Or maybe patent the unique structure of ozone - thereby collecting a huge fee from corporations that release ozone-destroying chemicals, for destroying private property.
Where is the common sense in the legal/patent system? Once a system becomes so full of loop-holes that it begins to resemble Swiss Cheese(TM) it should be Innovated(TM).
Another point of view (Score:2)
All the above just demonstrate, to more and more people, that offline laws aren't right for the Net. In the sense that efforts like Celera's convince more people that it's wrong, it may lead to a complete overhaul of world legal systems sooner rather than later. And that would be a Good Thing.
Chris [chrisworth.com]
Re:It's just not that simple.... (Score:2)
No, it is not a big jump that way, patenting human genes have been going on for quite some time now, and the genes have also often been naturally occuring. OK, in agricultural cases they move a gene from one organism to another, but it is usually a naturally occuring gene anyway (designed proteins have a long way before they are useful).
Here is an example. An Italian researcher found that people in a small village had very low frequences of chardiovascular diseases. He found that the gene for a protein had a mutation and patented this. Today that patent is held by Esperion [esperion.com], and they are working on makeing a drug out of this discovery.
The big change here is that Celera can patent 6000 genes. The reason they can (try) to do that is because they want to patent predicted function. There is no way they can have worked out 6000 drug targets without prediction. And therein also lays one of the problems the Wellcome trust have with these patents.
Lars
--
Re:capitalism (Score:5)
Now, we get to the human genome. One could argue for "prior art"; after all, I can think of six billion examples currently in existence, and untold billions before that. But the fact is, do we really want someone patenting human genes? Or is this an abuse of the patent system which really doesn't do anything to protect inventors (which is the purpose of the patent system, not protecting business).
Let's put another way. Suppose I were to patent a process consisting of a two major devices (called a "protagonist" and an "antagonist") and a variable number of secondary devices (called "major and minor characters). This process describes an interaction between these devices, including both action and dialogue, and determines an outcome which affects all devices in the process. The process itself is usually documented in books, but can be documented by electronic means or even on motion-picture film.
I just tried, in other words, to patent stories. If I get this patent (which may actually be possible; hell, IBM patented the wheel), I've basically bound every non-technical writer in the country to come to me and pay before releasing any of their work. Is this right? Of course not. The patent does not reflect any work I did at all.
It's the same with human genes. It's nothing but raw data. There is no process described (perhaps pattenting the process by which the data was obtained is one thing, but this is not the case). The data was not even really the creation of the scientists; they merely studied it. Can you patent a piece of paper with some numbers written on it?
The same argument applies to software. Patenting an algorithm does not reflect the work of a company. What reflects the work of a company is its specific implementation of an algorithm (in other words, its code); this cannot be patented but copyrights provide adequate protection of intellectual property of this nature (and, at least when issued to individuals, they can last up to ten times longer than patents, not to mention that they're far less expensive).
I would have no objections is this company were merely patenting the process by which they got this data. That would be highly unscientific, of course (since it kills replication of the experiments, one of the cornerstones of real science), but certainly within their rights. If they copyrighted their data, I wouldn't object; might as well, if only to keep someone from messing with it and re-releasing it for whatever reason. To patent the data they obtained, though, is very different.
Contacting Celera (Score:2)
http://www.celera.com/Compan yInformation/Contacts.shtm [celera.com]
And, on a technical note: ".shtm"?! What the hell is that?! People started using
Re:How do you patent found data? (Score:2)
Pebble Beach trademarked a tree (Score:2)
Actually, it's a registered trademark. I took a photo of the sign when I was there (USENIX conference in Monterey), and the exact text is:
So, if we get Celera to sequence the Lone Cypress, who wins? :-)
Lied to congress? (Score:5)
Ummm.. Isn't that technically purjury under US Law? I recall something like this.. not sure where I read that from, but the gist of it was you can't lie to congress for any reason, or something to that effect..
This only applies if he's a US citizen I suppose..
---
Re:How do you patent found data? (Score:4)
No - you can patent the drug you made from this fungus, but not the fungus itself. The work you expended was turning a fungus into a useful drug, and this is what is rewarded and protected.
Suppose I discover some South American farmer has a tomato cultivar that resists blight. I take a sample back to my lab, figure out which genes are responsible for the resistance, and transfer them to cultivars with more desirable commercial properties. Should I not be able to patent that?
Again, you should be able to patent the product of your work, not the raw materials. The tomato already exists - how can you patent an object (for it is an object, _not_ an idea or a concept) which already exists? That goes against the whole concept of "invention" which is key to patent law.
Let's suppose that I discover that adding baking soda to motor oil (not recommended!) doubles engine efficiency. Should I not be able to patent that?
Yes. You can patent "hey!s Wonder Engine Treatment 2000" which happens to be a scientifically blended combination of engine oil and baking soda. But that is not analogous to this situation. It's more like you discovering this wonder lube, and then trying to patent it's building blocks (i.e. engine oil and baking soda) rather than the product itself. I shall try to explain my understanding of the diffence here: The oil exists. The baking soda exists. The wonder lube is invented by combining the two. This is a new invention and so is patentable. By contrast: The DNA exists. The gene sequence is derived from the DNA by application of a known mechanical process. Nothing new is created or invented. There is nothing new here...how can it be patented? Can I patent your street because I sketch a map on the back of an envelope? Then I could charge you money if you write your address on a form. Hmmm....
For me, the thing I don't like about gene patents is that you can, presumably, get them just by mechanically sequencing base pairs. In my view, it is insufficiently creative to warrant society granting it the status of intellectual property, whatever its legal status. In this sphere, patent protection doesn't incent originality, it merely creates an artificial gold rush. I think you should have to show some novel intellectual insight, sufficient to suggest some non-obvious kinds of applications. Particularly in cases of biological patents, I believe not understanding the biological function of the "discovery" should be sufficient grounds to use the discovery outside the sphere of understanding of the "inventor".
Right on :-) I have no problem with companies patenting drugs, treatments, cosmetic doodads or whatever they create from using this information. But you simply cannot justify a patent on the information itself, IMHO.
It's just not that simple.... (Score:5)
A discovery can reasobaly considered IP in some situations, and so can a description. For instance, the Ordinance Survey have the rights to their particular description of the topology of Britain. All they've done is draw something that everyone has access to, but they've drawn it in a particular way. The OS can sue me if I use their maps in a book without permission. They can't sue me if I use their maps to work out how tall a mountain is, and then put that information in my book. Nor can they sue me if I draw my own maps from my own observations.
What is Celera proposing? That no-one may every make use of the human genome data without their permission? Or are they simply saying that if they go to the trouble of describing the genome in a useful way, and packaging it up, that people will have to pay to get that package. If the latter, I see no problem.
If they are trying to patent the Genome itself, then its farcical. If they are trying to patent their tools for working it out, or their method of displaying it, or their tools for making it searchable, that's fine.
A particular description of something is patentable, the thing described isn't necessarily.
Now there are grey areas. Could the first person (it may have been the OS) to come of with the idea of contour lines have declared them IP? Well, that's a grey area, and that's the controversial area, but it's unclear to what extent Celera are trying to do something like that.
Patents vs. Trade secrets. (Score:3)
In this case they are also practically preferable, since the human genome project will make the information available to everybody.