What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
127 Comments
- Arsenard, on 05/17/2009, -2/+108Makes as much sense as patenting the Periodic Table !!
Should be outlawed !!!! - eleete, on 05/17/2009, -2/+82Shows how convoluted Intellectual Property law has become.
- JohnWilsoniv, on 05/17/2009, -5/+67Monsanto is a company that patents many genes in GM Crops. If these crops are used in a farmers field and pollen or seeds from that crop drift into another farmer's field (who didnt pay to use them) Monsanto can and has sued that farmer. Imagine the implications for humans. Suing children because one of their parents had patented DNA?
- Niocan, on 05/17/2009, -3/+48All genes that could be made, are found in nature already. You can't patent something natural. *sigh* This is theft.
- davebg8r, on 05/17/2009, -3/+35This is a very simple issue. These patents are invalid. You cant patent something you did not create. God, a god, or nature, whatever your view of 'the creator' is, is the one the created those genes. These are just the first people who saw them and gave them a name. For those people, you get to NAME the genes but you dont own them. Just like people dont get to own new planets, plants, animals, or anything else that they find. If you can modify the genes to be a new gene that does not occur in nature, thereby not copying natures work, then you can patent it. Otherwise no.
- mostie, on 05/17/2009, -0/+30Someone else can own my genes? Crap!
- t0x2c, on 05/17/2009, -0/+26That's a fantastic analogy actually. Both Genes and Elements were not created, they were discovered, therefore the use of them should not be patented.
The problem comes in where each gene has a specific technique to detect or treat, and this technique is legally covered under patent law. - yerdaddy, on 05/17/2009, -2/+26It should be made illegal as soon as possible. The keys to improved life should be free for all. It has been this way throughout history, a natural situation powerful enough to bring us to this point and far beyond. The technology would suffer no delay of advance if work in genetics was only done by people who think this way. Attempts to legally or monetarily control genetics will manifest as nothing but evil. It has so far and always will.
- Javy42, on 05/17/2009, -2/+25This is absolutely absurd... As far as I see this is completely morally wrong in every aspect conceivable. JohnWilsoniv hit the nail on the head.
- holyskeleton, on 05/17/2009, -5/+25they should just dissolve the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- ranon78, on 05/17/2009, -2/+21We owe the Human Genome Project a great debt of gratitude.
- Deaconstructed, on 05/17/2009, -2/+19We need a 'Free Scientific Knowledge Act' of some sort
- FTLJohnson, on 05/17/2009, -3/+18I'm waiting until the day people realize that what companies are doing is buying violence from the government. Essentially, Government has a monopoly on the use of force and violence (for the most part) within it's borders. So, if you are a big business, and you want to threaten someone with violence, you have to buy that violence from the Government. You become incorporated.and get a patent. You then you have the ability now as a business to pay a small deductible (a lawsuit) and you have all the might of all the violence of the federal government behind you if your target doesn't obey. You can take money from them (lawsuit), possibly putting them out of business, and if they REALLY don't want to comply, you can have them locked up, or even killed (should they refuse to comply with being arrested, fined, and put out of business).
The only defense against violence against you by the government, is to make sure you are a more valuable customer in terms of how much violence you are buying from them.
The United States Government has basically gone completely out of control with this, and the only way it can continue to keep feeding itself (PAYING the ridiculous salaries of people that produce NOTHING of value) is by continuing this cycle of violence, and taking from peaceful people and making, or keeping ridiculous things crimes so that it can use more violence to steal from people.
It would be IMPOSSIBLE to list all the things here that you can be fined for, and all the fees and licenses required for things that are supposed to be rights. - nextekcarl, on 05/17/2009, -0/+14We really should be calling it Imaginary Property, because frequently it isn't very intellectual, and I know I'm not the first to say that.
- fety, on 05/17/2009, -0/+11Also watch, The World According to Monsanto.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-486749325 ...
those limey bastards!!! - Khast, on 05/17/2009, -2/+13I'm sorry, but I don't think it should be legal to patent/copyright living organisms. I see this could lead to future problems, especially if we get bio-engineers who become patent trolls.
- Disruptpwnt, on 05/17/2009, -0/+10There is a video on Hulu called The Future of Food that talks about Monsanto in it.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food - flaminglips, on 05/17/2009, -0/+9Weren't they the ones using rBST and rBGH on dairy cattle when FOX News tried to cover up the story?
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -1/+10Yes and they call people who download music pirates where here you have companies stealing genes from someone... remind me again why the law only applies to individuals..?? Oh yeah.. money and greed.
- t0x2c, on 05/17/2009, -2/+10Um, I hope that none of those lawsuits have passed because they don't own a patent on the GENE, they own the patent on the process to create the gene.
- MikaStar, on 05/17/2009, -3/+11That is wrong and unethical, completely wrong and unethical. You can not patent someone's genes, that's just as ridiculous as saying you're going to patent human hair or the human heart. All they're doing is using it to exploit people who need help. They're making a diagnostic test ridiculously expensive because they can and making thousands of women suffer because of their greed. I hope the ACLU wins, because what those companies are doing is just so wrong, it's anti-human.
- senae, on 05/17/2009, -0/+7With a name like that you just know it'll be used to stifle progress for any but the largest and richest companies.
- shiftkgb, on 05/18/2009, -0/+7Gataca is a good movie.
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -0/+7Um, prior art?
- zer0ness, on 05/17/2009, -5/+12I wish I was DNA Helicase so I could unzip your genes.
- LacY, on 05/18/2009, -0/+6I agree. It's one thing if they modified a gene--I could see how maybe that would be patentable. For instance, green fluorescent protein is found in nature. A small mutation in one amino acid makes the protein now fluoresce yellow. If a lab had created YFP, then I could see how *that* could be patentable, but not the original GFP. But to actually patent a naturally ocurring gene just seems wrong.
Especially when you consider that these genes aren't found by companies--they're found at research institutions that then form companies (or sell it to a company). And the $$$ funding the original research is often NIH (aka, taxpayer) money. Then factor in that they wouldn't have found these genes without the generous donation of blood/tissue/etc of patients--these people donated their genetic information for the good of science, and then have to pay $$$$ for whatever is discovered. - compulsive1, on 05/18/2009, -0/+6If these patents on human genes are upheld I see a bright future for all sorts of Pirate Parties around the world leading to change in IP laws in general
Once stealing intellectual property will become a matter of life and death- kind of like stealing food to survive, it will be so much easier to justify use of knowledge by people who didn't create it, but are capable of making use of it in general.
This might have wide ranging repercussions in all sorts of IP laws. It could be in "traditional" IP rights holders interest to lobby against gene patents. - BrightBetty, on 05/18/2009, -0/+6Several small farmers have been successfully sued and Monsanto has won. It's really disgusting, they even collect royalties off of crops, and there is a big stirring right now in Europe as Germany has decided they don't want to grow Monsanto's gm corn, and down in India, farmers are suffering under Monsanto's thumb. It's scary to think that a company can take genes they *didn't* invent, splice them together and slap a patent on it and collect royalties and sue people who save the seeds to replant. In cases of genetics, it should be that you patent the technology, not the product.
- retreadd68, on 05/17/2009, -1/+7This is how i see corporations as complete *****, i mean they have more rights then the individual and get bailed out with peoples money and the minute they start doing slightly worse they cut thousands of jobs. here's an idea cut off the ceo's who make thousands an hour, and now they can say the can have the rights to something that is basically a part of every single one of us is simply ridicules VIVA LA REVOLUTION lol
- t0x2c, on 05/17/2009, -0/+6You can't patent ITEMS anyways! You patent procedures.
- thebrok3nsystm, on 05/17/2009, -1/+6Heres what really sucks that isn't mentioned or alluded to much in the article. Diseases and mutations of your cells can also be patented by pharmaceuticals. Example: Diabetes, aids, etc. This stifles the amount of research towards cures and vaccines allowed since it is all tied up in one company with the patent. Its disgusting.
- mydiggID1, on 05/17/2009, -1/+6Which is morally objectionable itself...Knowledge like this should be shared.
They charge people to follow this "procedure" they have patented. Charge people...people who want to do tests...
*sigh* - moxley, on 05/17/2009, -1/+6No, I think you're referring to the "*****" gene; but we don't need a test for that, it's apparent among people who think homosexuality is a disorder or choice.
I have plenty of freinds who are gay, and aside from the benefit of having a close nit subculture, nobody would willfuly choose to suffesr the sort of ***** many of them have had to, at one time or another in their lives, put up with.
It's not a disorder, it's not a choice. - you're welcome to your own opinion as far as how you feel about it - but when you make up some misspelled ***** about it being "scientifically proved (sic)," well... - factsahoy, on 05/18/2009, -0/+5This has essentially already happened. Farmers are totally oppressed by agricultural chemical companies like Monsanto, who secure exclusive contracts with distributors who must then refuse to buy from farmers who don't use their seeds or other products.
Farmers who don't bend over and take it can't find anyone to buy their crops.
Meanwhile, the government does nothing. - RegimeUnchanged, on 05/18/2009, -0/+5The Corporation...
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=32032538 ...
They OWN You. - philodygmn, on 05/17/2009, -1/+6Patenting life is inhumane. Period. We don't have to establish distinctions among instances. Patent technology over them if you must, but you cannot ever patent any actual instance. This is the type of critical distinction between patents and copyright, which oligarchic elites are only too happy to smear with legally fictionalized terms like "intellectual property", then smokescreen their wild-eyed, inhuman ambitions with argumentative precedents hijacking the legal system.
- dizavin, on 05/17/2009, -2/+7absolutely everything outside of a full-birth human being can be patented and copyrighted.
just wait until farmers have to lease their crops every year to a group of bio-tech companies and the price of food irreversibly skyrockets. - jivatmanx, on 05/17/2009, -2/+7Absolutely. The purpose of science is to create free knowledge for the benefit of all humanity, not to empower corporations with exclusive rights to the knowledge for decades, holding science back far, far, slower than if the "incentive" of patents didn't exist.
"Intellectual Property" is just another artificial creation to giving power small group of people. Alexander Hamilton created the first national bank, but he could hardly have envisioned the ingenuity of his successors.
Same old song, the elite should rule, the masses are brutish and cannot be trusted to own their own money, scientific knowledge, or a government of themselves.
A few people think different. JFK executive order 11110 to challenge the federal reserve, he felt that technology was for all humanity (Khruschev's son says that just prior to JFK's assasination, Khruschev and JFK had made a verbal agreement for a joint space program). He established the peace corps.
Of course, we all know what happened. He was killed. His killer was killed. Then his killer's killer died of an illness before after he successfully appealed his conviction.
I must say, Obama does remind me of JFK. I believe his heart is in the right place. I sure hope i am right, and if I am, that he lives. - bobbi21, on 05/17/2009, -0/+4What's with the mention of us sharing 20% of genes with chimps? I'm pretty sure it's much more than that...
- tgc1, on 05/18/2009, -0/+4And perhaps now the people will see the pending war that will take place between Corporations and The People.
- bratterscain, on 05/17/2009, -2/+6Own my ass!
- h0ser, on 05/18/2009, -0/+4In my opinion, patents should all be done away with. The only reason someone patents an item is because they want to make money off of it, or get recognition for the work that they've done.
BOTH of those reasons are meaningless for the betterment of humanity.
No patents means free information for anyone to copy and innovate to make better.
Credit is meant for attention starved people who aren't satisfied with the accomplishment that they've earned, but instead need to have everyone pat them on the back for it. - LordBalderdash, on 05/18/2009, -0/+4fine. i'm patenting oxygen.
stop breathing *****, that ***** is MINE. - Jlaugh, on 05/17/2009, -1/+5Sounds like an agreement for serious IP law revision.
- inactive, on 05/18/2009, -0/+4Patenting of genes blocks research into diseases. It should be outlawed since genes and gene expression can today be measured in hours and not months or years. In 10 years it will be possible to take a drop a blood and measure any possible life time complications in under 3 minutes but only if the genes are not patented. You can patent the technology or the methodology if you wish but not the genes themselves. It creates a massive minefield of IP that takes years to sort out.
Humans are stupid sometimes. - V3NOM, on 05/17/2009, -0/+4"Next" by Michael Crichton talks about the entire area of genetic research (including gene patents). It sort of presents a scenario of how it could be commercialized out of control without accountability.
Pretty good read. - RegimeUnchanged, on 05/18/2009, -0/+4Quiz:
Which corporation has the copyright to "Happy Birthday"?
(watch above film for answer) - KingGorilla, on 05/17/2009, -1/+4All notes that could be made are found on a keyboard
- Ghoztt, on 05/17/2009, -1/+4IDIOTS.
- TheShad0w, on 05/18/2009, -0/+3So, what the F happens when it become a naturally occurring adaptation? This is ridiculous.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is