What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
364 Comments
- YouAreDead, on 12/03/2008, -2/+252wtf
patent on DNA - DonJuanAussi, on 12/03/2008, -2/+229Since many of the sufferers had and owned this genome before the drug company, they should take a case against the drug company for "Prior Art". The end result is that the company would lose the patent.
- ZacT, on 12/03/2008, -1/+142This is a system gone mad.
- Moonkeeper, on 12/03/2008, -18/+158Is Australian healthcare "socialized?"
Also, how can a patent be granted to something that is already naturally occurring in everyone? A patent is only supposed to apply to legitimately unique inventions. - honeybrass, on 12/03/2008, -9/+115The patent system is evil.
- HamstaMan, on 12/03/2008, -1/+105Yes. Yes, this is indeed what people had in mind when concept of patents were created. Yepp.
- IHaveIssues, on 12/03/2008, -2/+100Holy crap, this is Michael Crichton's Next come true!
- ran24, on 12/03/2008, -1/+87How the hell is a company allowed to patent DNA?
- Kyrgizion, on 12/03/2008, -2/+83This is how it starts.
If people don't make a big fuss over this now, they have no right to complain when they pay thair annual 20.000$ to whatever company allows them to stay alive for another year in the not-so-distant future. - norman619, on 12/03/2008, -3/+81It still does not answer the question of how one can patent a gene everyone has. I guess we can also patent cats and dog. How about a patent on water? I'm gonna patent organs. I have dibs on the lungs! Any thinking person and/or court of law should be able to see how absurd that is and throw it out.
- Tbyrd073, on 12/03/2008, -2/+55How can DNA be defined as intellectual property? Does that mean people can eventually get sued for having certain genes? I can see them having a patent on the genetic testing but the gene itself doesn't make sense. This is just wrong.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -8/+61Excuse me Genetic Technologies, but the patent to DNA and every living organism, belongs to the One who created it!
Arrogant bastards! - inactive, on 12/03/2008, -2/+51Michael Crichton predicted it, and now it's coming true.
- subliminalurge, on 12/03/2008, -0/+48"I'm going to patent weed. I'm gonna be rich!"
Great, now in addition to the possession charge, I'll have a patent violation to worry about. Thanks *****! - sLydE, on 12/03/2008, -1/+48I came here expecting an Onion article. I guess you learn something new every day.
- MeatMountain, on 12/03/2008, -9/+55I'm not sure how you make the connection between medicine being "Socialized" and a treatment being owned by a "Private Corporation."
Tell me, does it hurt when you suppress rationality? - aaron117, on 12/03/2008, -2/+47What the ***** you cant do this.
Sick sick world. - 0Xonox0, on 12/03/2008, -1/+45I take it upon myself to create as many illegal copies of my DNA as possible. It's a hard job, but somebodies got to stand up to all these medical companies!
- browe07, on 12/03/2008, -1/+44I'm going to patent weed. I'm gonna be rich!
- BellaVitaGirl, on 12/03/2008, -4/+46Read up on your genetics history. Basically every gene is patented in some way, shape or form. The Genome War by James Shreeve explains this rather well--it was the brainchild of one lawyer in particular (I'm blanking on the name right now, it's in the book).
- o0joshua0o, on 12/03/2008, -0/+34It should be legally impossible to patent the naturally occurring building blocks of life. The lawyers have really run amuck.
- Slimjim42, on 12/03/2008, -0/+32I'm glad i live in Canada, We don't recognize patents on human genes.
- fangs4evrything, on 12/03/2008, -2/+29But, uh, my mother AND father technically created my DNA....unless I'm an amoeba...
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -1/+27But think of the profits!
/s - Braxo, on 12/03/2008, -0/+22I came here to say that exactly.
- Braxo, on 12/03/2008, -0/+22'Next' by Michael Crichton also is a story about genes that are patented and owned by corporations.
- smacksaw, on 12/03/2008, -2/+22It belongs to Neo?
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -0/+19Biopiracy!!! It would appear that the organisations that grant patents would do anything for the correct financial incentive.
- norman619, on 12/03/2008, -2/+21kawakas:
"That depends on how ignorant you are."
Fixed that for you. - agent888, on 12/03/2008, -0/+18"Next" was the first thing I thought of too.
- krnldmp, on 12/03/2008, -0/+18DNA is prior art.
- Prosequi, on 12/03/2008, -2/+20They cannot - the article glossed over the complexities of the system. More than likely a process for testing for the gene has been patented.
- patm1987, on 12/03/2008, -0/+18From what I understand of the gene patenting system, there was little interest in dedicated research in this area (suppose big corp 1 figures out how to cure cancer, big corp 2 saves millions of dollars just taking their research). The general idea is to, just as with normal patents, give the discoverer a temporary monopoly on the use of their research so that they have a chance at a commercial profit and get a higher market penetration.
Yeah, it's terrible that these babies are denied treatment (downright unethical in my book), but the logic behind it is that without this patenting system no one would of put the money down for research into the workings of this particular gene. I suppose that you could make the argument that this system is ultimately good since even though these babies can't get treatment due to monetary insufficiencies, a treatment exists as opposed to a treatment not existing. I personally find it hard to believe that various interest groups, non-profits, and tax breaks couldn't achieve the same result (a treatment for epilepsy) without the current limitations.
Even with the patent system in place, how do the heads of Genetic Technologies sleep at night knowing that they're inevitably going to suffer at the hands of 1000 angry dead baby spirits? - Nintendesert, on 12/03/2008, -1/+18Well, somebody stuck their dick in your mom...
- anarcurt, on 12/03/2008, -2/+19RIP
- slvrbullet87, on 12/03/2008, -0/+16Dibs on oposible thumbs... Now all of you have to pay royalties everytime you open a door
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -0/+16There is NO WAY you should be allowed to patent human DNA.
- jehan60188, on 12/03/2008, -0/+15yah, seriously. pretty soon everyone born with a genetic predisposition to diabetes will have to pay royalties to some pharmaceutical company...
- 0Xonox0, on 12/03/2008, -4/+19My DNA belongs to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
- 0Xonox0, on 12/03/2008, -0/+15@Robinew read Next -I think that was about the greed and selfishness of genetics corporations. It also includes a talking monkey. You can't go wrong with a talking monkey.
RIP
Michael Crichton
May we some day extract your DNA from a mosquito, patent it, create a theme park of your clones which ultimately break free and wreak havoc on their masters. - thanakar, on 12/03/2008, -1/+15Why? Many of these drug companies are backers of genetic research.
- Thuban, on 12/03/2008, -0/+14Me too
- moxley, on 12/03/2008, -2/+15That doesn't matter, and while I agree with you putting it into perspective, this is an important issue - and since thinking of babies being denied treatment is what gets the sheeple motivated, then that sort of "marketing to the masses" is a tool to be used in the arsenal of those who would like to help by getting the atttention of the public. It is certainly nowhere near as crass and "anti-humanistic" as capitalistic monopolies over genes.
You seem to not see a problem with having to go to a single company in a for profit model when it comes to DNA utilizing therapies and treatments, but there is a HUGE problem with this for everyone and for our future, so while I agree that the article was sensationalized in a way that is designed to get attention, I think that attenmtion is warranted. - Grym11, on 12/03/2008, -1/+14This isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Last year ago I submitted stories on Digg and Slashdot about how Questcor, a pharmaceutical company, decided to arbitrarily raise the price of Acthar gel, a 60 year old drug, by 2000%. Acthar gel is one of the few treatments for Infantile Spasms.
There were literally babies convulsing to death because some jackasses at Questcor wanted to improve their bottom-line. I typically hesitate to call things evil, but if this isn't evil I don't know what is...
Links:
http://blogs.timesunion.com/austinbenconnor/?p=484
http://www.healthbusinessblog.com/?p=1427 - PhilMoskowitz, on 12/03/2008, -1/+14We are bound and hell bent on sabotaging human progress so a few ***** can make money. There will be a reckoning some day.
- Leprince, on 12/03/2008, -2/+14Sick sick babies too.
- norman619, on 12/03/2008, -0/+12Sci-fi books tend to be windows looking on to our future. So that's not a huge surprise.
- CCB0x45, on 12/03/2008, -0/+12torrent link?
- JoeMerchant, on 12/03/2008, -2/+13
News flash: Sick babies are denied treatment every day based on all kinds of things more heinous than a patent - yeah, this is bad, but regulations on medical practice, both legislative and financial, are allowing people (especially newborns) to die every minute of the day. -
Show 51 - 100 of 371 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is