What is Digg?41 Comments
- SystemicThought, on 11/03/2009, -1/+37The problem is they're not creating anything. Watson and Crick didn't get to restrict others from recognizing the double helix. William Herschel didn't get to keep the rights to Uranus. You cannot keep the rights to an observation. If they develop ways to replicate those genes, then by all means, they can copyright or patent that. But you should not be able to patent natural fact.
- michaelpinto, on 11/03/2009, -3/+35This even has further implications: In the future a company could recover your dna without permission, copyright it and then prevent you from obtaining genetic specific treatments unless you pay a fee.
- gritta, on 11/03/2009, -2/+25Patents are retarded.
- MikeSC6, on 11/03/2009, -1/+23People saying that patents reward research should read "Who Owns You?"
Preliminary research is funded and patented. The patent holders then sit back and have researchers pay them for the privilege of doing further research, the costly and intensive research. It's called capitalism and it's killing medical research. - Culyt, on 11/03/2009, -0/+18Firstly, some people research stuff for the sake of scientific advancement to improve our understanding of the universe and advance the human race. Crazy huh.
The Large Hadron Collider isn't going to produce anything that is patentable. Nor will any of the space probes or rovers NASA/ESA are launching to Mercuty/Mars/Pluto and so on.
Scientific advancement won't stop because people can't patent stuff.
In addition to that, companies will research new technologies so they can sell products based on it first. If you are a company testing for cancer then you will want to cover as many genes in your tests as possible. You will want to be able to claim you do something extra the competition doesn't even if they will start to do it shortly after.
The other issue to remember is that as technology does advance, testing genes and such will become much easier to research. For example we have automated robots that can alter genes in yeast, grow the yeast and work out what those genes do. Those robots could be patenting the genes by the millions. Computer simulations will be possible later on, just hit a button, get all the results on the human genome and patent everyone.
Also having access too all the genetic information could actually accelerate scientific understanding. You might not be able to do much with 1 or 2 genes but when you see how they all increase the chance of cancer, maybe there is a common property that would allow a large amount of cancer to be stopped or slowed down.
The other issue is they aren't actually creating the genes, they are just working out what they do. They didn't make a gene that detects cancer, they just found genes that already existed that are linked to cancer.
Not to mention that by restricting the test they are outright killing people. - FunFactor100, on 11/03/2009, -1/+18Sure, if they come up with a new and innovative "technology" that allows them to replicate the genes, then I think they should be able to patent that technology. And if someone comes along and finds a better way to do it, then they get to patent that new technology. However, patenting the actual genes is absurd and dangerous. The genes already existed...these scientists did not invent the genes.
- tgc1, on 11/03/2009, -0/+16How did the Patent system get so ***** up?
- Iceman21, on 11/03/2009, -0/+16OMG LOGIC FROM A COURT!!!!
- spiralspirit, on 11/03/2009, -1/+15these people didnt invent anything, they just observed genes, and were awarded the "rights" for genes they didnt create. they should have rights to a process, or to some alteration, perhaps, but its like listening to a piece of music someone else wrote and then saying you own it because you heard it.
- inactive, on 11/03/2009, -2/+16Surprised you had time in between tea parties and Ayn Rand conventions to type that.
- linagee, on 11/03/2009, -0/+13Better yet, they'll let you breed a few generations. Then they will actually be able to call your children theirs. (Just like Monsanto said their genetically modified crops growing on other people's farms are theirs.) Welcome to Slavery 2.0!
- Iceman21, on 11/03/2009, -1/+12***** you, idiot.
- iancgi, on 11/03/2009, -1/+11draw your line already cause THEY WILL NOT stop pushing until we are their slaves.
- KibibyteBrain, on 11/03/2009, -1/+8Wrong. You can't "copyright" something, you gain a copyright on your original works automatically when you compose them.
They could copyright part of common process(say part of an algorithm) to decode your DNA which could in practice essentially block you from getting access. They can patent your gene's function.(although this might be debatable) Actually, there are many evil things someone could do to you with the current status quo. But you can't do something that is fundamentally impossible. - laminac, on 11/03/2009, -0/+6wrong, they invented the test for the genes, I'm fine with them patenting their test, because they need to recoupe their costs, but to make it so broad no one can even look at the gene seems a little odd.
- DamnMan, on 11/03/2009, -1/+6Nothing wrong with a research firm making money. But there is a point where you have the make a distinction between higher concepts like fairness, the notion of cruelty, and the pure science of it all.
Our collective genetic code seems to be a pretty damn good place to start drawing that line in the sand. ***** gets ugly pretty quick otherwise...
Example. I'm going to go get a patent for a biologic system of interconnected cells that form sacks to draw in a gas mixture comprised mostly of nitrogen and extract a desired trace gas for distribution in a liquid suspension. Hope your not too keen on breathing ***** cuz I just patented lungs!
Scientific progress and abject human suffering are on an inverse proportion to each other. Yeah we could get ***** done faster if we sold scientist all the Puerto Ricans. But I'm thinking instead the hit in advancement speed is a fair trade in human lab rats and not being able to afford to pay for your patented AIDS treatments. - mullzoo, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4typos happen, but thank's for making a issue about it, why was it so necessary to point outt? anyway, you might need a reminded about the proper use of it's and its.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 11/03/2009, -1/+5IMO the problems began in the '80s, when Reagan's administration increased fees ("not taxes!"). From that point on, corporations -- especially foreign corporations -- got the lion's share of patents. I want a return to a fee system that encourages inventors with Einstein hair to file patents in greater numbers (and I wouldn't mind higher fees for corporate patents to accomplish this). I urge anyone in/near DC to visit the PTO in person, it's quite a place...
- fenestadecor, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4nice .........
- Taiyoryu, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3The bottom line. DNA should not be patentable. Such patents are treated as property claims akin to a land grab. Do you know why? Because DNA is in all living things and easily obtainable. These patents are simply a tool to limit competition in an unintended way. There's no invention being created, therefore no patent should be awarded. If someone creates a new process or product that makes use of DNA then that's what is patentable. However, that should not prevent some other person from creating an alternative process or product that acts on the same DNA. The patent system needs reform.
- sierrabravo, on 11/03/2009, -2/+5next they will be copyrighting body parts. every time someone is born with a vagina the parents will have to pay royalties.
- rrwest, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2No one was paying attention and few people could fight corporations that had deep pockets in court.
It sucks, but that is pretty much what happened. - mullzoo, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2as a scientist who studies cancer I'm appalled at what this company is doing. they're patent should be revoked to allow for better and more affordable screening tests.
- SilverBlade2k, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Good. I hope this succeeds. No company should have a patent on this kind of thing.
- Stingwolf, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Actually, patents are very much against the spirit of free-market capitalism. Unfortunately, they are provisioned in the Constitution. However, the way they "work" today is a far cry from the intention of those who wrote the Constitution. "To promote the progress..." should be replaced with "to reward the one who applies first and has more lawyers on staff."
- CaughtThinking, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Go for it guy! This lawsuit should've been filed decades ago when they started awarding patents for this nonsense.
- Nerys, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2the problem is not patents. The problem is patent ABUSE.
it should not even be POSSIBLE to patent a gene since I would think the fact that the person you got the gene from is a pretty damned clear case of PRIOR ART.
Second the patent system is not designed to reward people. The patent system is designed to foster innovation and reward those that use it as such.
the distinction is small but critical. When the patent is used for a purpose NOT of this design that patent should be VOIDED such as the chevron NIMH patent.
they are using the patent for EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what the patent system was intended for. To STIFLE innovation instead of advancing it.
The same thing applies with these stupid illegal patents on things from nature and from our bodies. - Nerys, on 11/03/2009, -1/+3There is a difference between charging you for a service and PATENTING YOUR DNA so you can not go to an alternative company to get your analysys.
These patents are illegal. I mean seriously WTF is not MILLIONS OF YEARS OF EVOLUTION not enough "prior art" to invalidate all of these patents? - rrwest, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Gattaca was a film that takes this idea to a not-so-far extreme.
Imagine a time when insurance companies, corporations and governments screen people for genetic conditions prior to getting insurance, getting hired and getting beneifts.
Insurance companies and some corporations do this right now.
Eugenics through DNA screening saves time and money since future genetic health related issues magically "vanish" once the people who have them are ineligible for anything. - jimfeet, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Perfect analogy! Clear, concise and accurate description of the circumstances.
- D0m0kun, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1*yields* .. this is present research.
- rcook18, on 11/03/2009, -4/+4Competition will yield the best research.
- IKORKYI, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1its a tough argument...on one hand you want to make research like this profitable so it is widely persued and advanced, but at the same time you don't want to keep existance changing advances from reaching the masses. as long as everyone has access to the technology, i don't mind if the company who discovered the way is filthy rich.
- Stingwolf, on 11/04/2009, -0/+0"the problem is not patents. The problem is patent ABUSE."
Unfortunately, you can't have one without the other. The whole point of patents is to grant "exclusive rights" to the first one to apply for it (-not- the first one to invent it, necessarily). How do you enforce your "exclusive right?" That's right, a lawsuit. Who are you suing? You're suing someone who used a technology similar to that you patented and didn't pay you what you wanted. This prevents anyone from furthering the public knowledge base using "your" technology. The very definition of patents justifies this abuse. - rrwest, on 11/04/2009, -0/+0I apologize for making an issue of the typo. Its one of my pet peeves since I seem to see errors everywhere. Journalists in particular have a tendency to make them yet you would expect that they would be the last to do so.
Yes, "its" and "It's" is now one of my most common mistakes and I will try to correct them.
I wish you the best of luck in your research. I worked for several researchers during the 1990s as a labware cleaner and saw first-hand how time-consuming and frustrating it can be for scientists. Its not like Fringe, where the good Dr. Benjamin can get samples, vaccines and other things made up in an hour. - Iceman21, on 11/03/2009, -4/+2It got ***** up?
It was a poor idea to begin with. - rrwest, on 11/03/2009, -4/+0Ummm grammar, please.
Its "their" patent.
And I agree with your statement.
Money trumps ethics and common sense once CEOs, lawyers and salesmen get involved. - Bartboy919, on 11/03/2009, -10/+2This is *****.
- jp2535, on 11/03/2009, -16/+2Not really.......Why would people try to research something, just to have it taken away? They spend millions, at least let them make some money
- executex, on 11/03/2009, -24/+6If someone put in the investment and time to do the research, they need to be able to profit off of it via patents---otherwise, no company would do the research knowing someone else will use their research to make the profits.
- jp2535, on 11/03/2009, -21/+1you mean they actually will charge you money for a service they provide!! OMG.....it's almost like making people pay money for food....except not
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is