so basically we're all living, breathing walking examples of copyright infringement?

y'know, a wise man once said that once you lose everything, you're free to do anything.

Weaver95: y'know, a wise man once said that once you lose everything, you're free to do anything.

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.

what about the gas I pass from my ass?

Weaver95: so basically we're all living, breathing walking examples of copyright infringement?

y'know, a wise man once said that once you lose everything, you're free to do anything.

No, patent.

Though this is a 1st Amendment case, I remember reading the beginnings of this a year or so ago.

The way this works (from my understanding) is that a biotech company can get a patent on a gene that gives them a monopoly over all research on the given gene. Effectively, if you can isolate a gene and create method by which to do so and experiment with it, you get a patent on that gene.

Based on that, it seems that if you isolate a gene that is involved in liver cancer, you get control over it, even if someone working on childhood leukemia may believe that gene is essential to their research - they need to pay to license it from you.

If only I could patent stupid. The royalties would be unimaginable.

what a weird coincidence, since it was a fifth that helped me get created.

50mm: If only I could patent stupid. The royalties would be unimaginable.

Technically, if you isolate the gene that causes stupidity, then you'd hold a monopoly over the test for stupidity.

El Chode: Based on that, it seems that if you isolate a gene that is involved in liver cancer, you get control over it, even if someone working on childhood leukemia may believe that gene is essential to their research - they need to pay to license it from you.

great idea - I'd like some Microsoft cancer, and an order of McDonalds Diabetes to go please.

an 18th century legal system riding herd on cutting edge 21st century technological research. this does not sound like a wonderful combination to me.

FTA:

The judge noted that the plaintiffs contended that patents grant Myriad ownership rights over products of nature, laws of nature, natural phenomena, abstract ideas and basic human knowledge and thought in violation of the First Amendment's protections over freedom of thought.

SO what is going to triasl here is the fact that no one can copyright or patent any natural part of the human genome, which is what the company and patent office are being sued over.

El Chode: 50mm: If only I could patent stupid. The royalties would be unimaginable.

Technically, if you isolate the gene that causes stupidity, then you'd hold a monopoly over the test for stupidity.

so if the fundies isolate the 'gay gene', they 'own' homosexuality?

Jesus. It's like a crappy Michael Crichton book come to life.

So let's bring on the genetically-modified neo-apes!

Shostie: Jesus. It's like a crappy Michael Crichton book come to life.

So let's bring on the genetically-modified neo-apes!

nope - The Dominion.

Get in line serf!

Shostie: Jesus. It's like a crappy Michael Crichton book come to life.

So let's bring on the genetically-modified neo-apes!

His last book had chapters devoted to why this is a bad thing.

Weaver95: so if the fundies isolate the 'gay gene', they 'own' homosexuality?

They'd own the test for gayness, well...more officially at least.

El Chode: 50mm: If only I could patent stupid. The royalties would be unimaginable.

Technically, if you isolate the gene that causes stupidity, then you'd hold a monopoly over the test for stupidity.

I even have a good idea for a test: "Did you forgo vaccinating your children out of fear of autism?"

Also, I'm not a patent person, so if anyone with better understanding knows more, feel free to correct me. I'm really good at talking out of my ass. I need to go unseat Corzine

El Chode: Also, I'm not a patent person, so if anyone with better understanding knows more, feel free to correct me. I'm really good at talking out of my ass. I need to go unseat Corzine

Also, go Daggett

/end threadjack

IrateShadow: Shostie: Jesus. It's like a crappy Michael Crichton book come to life.

So let's bring on the genetically-modified neo-apes!

His last book had chapters devoted to why this is a bad thing.

I know. I read the book. I was making a joke in that A) The article almost seems like a copy/paste of various situations in his book, and B) It's probably the least focused book he wrote (that I've seen so far). I consider it one of his poorest.

El Chode: Weaver95: so if the fundies isolate the 'gay gene', they 'own' homosexuality?

They'd own the test for gayness, well...more officially at least.

That was nicely done.

I walked into the forest and found a tree I like.

I think I'll patent it.


/always thought gene patents were complete b.s. and should be done away with completely

Shostie: I know. I read the book. I was making a joke in that A) The article almost seems like a copy/paste of various situations in his book, and B) It's probably the least focused book he wrote (that I've seen so far). I consider it one of his poorest.

His past few books have been awful. He's always been a little preachy, but it's starting to seem that the influence that he had during the Bush years convinced him that he was an actual authority than a novelist.

cretinbob: what about the gas I pass from my ass?

The mass without class smells like bass, alas.

IrateShadow: His past few books have been awful. He's always been a little preachy, but it's starting to seem that the influence that he had during the Bush years convinced him that he was an actual authority than a novelist.

He's got two more coming out posthumously. One is some generic techno-thriller like he's been pumping out throughout his career, the other is some pirate-related historical novel. I might pick up the latter, because his historical fiction is generally pretty good.

I don't like this, not because I see this as an infringement of personal freedom, but because I very strongly oppose movement towards Eugenics. It will lead to the newest form of discrimination, and it needs to be stifled.

This will lead the latest in patent trolling. If you have a baby with that gene, you'll be sued for infringement.

Can I patent breathing? The license would be free, but can be revoked at anytime at my whim.

cretinbob: what about the gas I pass from my ass?

He who denied it, supplied it.
He who berated it, created it.
He who perceived it, conceived it.

cretinbob: what about the gas I pass from my ass?

That's crass

Smugly vindicated.

/hotlinked with no concern for pride

Is there a personal use clause for making copies of the gene or do I have to stop dividing my cells or risk some sort of copyright infringment? Do I have to buy a license to pass on my genes to hypothetical offspring?

This is all so stupid.

If the government can take away property like land to build roads for the public good surely they can take away imaginary rights to human dna so that people can go on searching for a cure for cancer.

I was waiting for so long for these patents to be challenged. You shouldn't be able to patent anything that is already naturally formed. If you want to do that you have to make it up on your own.

How can they patent a natural substance? I can see patenting the test FOR the substance, but not the substance itself.

It's about time that someone challenged this. When companies were granted patents for existing genes, it went against the novelty requirement of patent law.

"Novelty" - "Novelty" is strictly defined by patent law. An invention cannot be patented if:

The invention was known or used by others in the United States before the patent applicant invented it.

The invention was patented or described in any printed publication, before the patent applicant invented it.

The invention was patented or described in a printed publication in any country more than one year prior to the inventor's U.S. patent application.

The invention was in public use or on sale in the United States more than one year prior to the inventor's U.S. patent application.



They didn't invent the genes, and I'm pretty sure we've been using them for a few billion years.

Thisbymaster: You shouldn't be able to patent anything that is already naturally formed. If you want to do that you have to make it up on your own.

I work with a guy who decided that he was going to patent (patenting is probably the wrong procedure for what we were talking about, but that's really relevant here) a buffalo wing sauce. His sauce recipe was as follows:

One part - "Three Mile Island" sauce from Hooters
One part - "Hot" sauce from Hooters

I tried to explain to him that this wasn't going to work out. He responded by emphasizing how good it was, to which I admitted that yes, it is very very good but that's not the point. We eventually stopped arguing about it and just let it drop but I think he still holds a grudge that I didn't support his great idea.

er...

sxacho: (patenting is probably the wrong procedure for what we were talking about, but that's not really relevant here)

there

Only one fifth?

Actually if you use the metric of cell count, then 19/20ths of the cells in "your" body aren't "you."

Yes, bacteria in your body outnumber your own cells by a factor of 20 to 1.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5527426 (new window)

cretinbob: what about the gas I pass from my ass?

You aren't charging for that? I've been invoicing family, friends, roomates and strangers on the train and elevator since 2002.

It is always nice to see someone out there litigating against stupid.

/Too often it's the other way around.

IrateShadow: ut it's starting to seem that the influence that he had during the Bush years convinced him that he was an actual authority than a novelist.

Yeah ... I mean he only had a medical doctorate from Harvard. Who is he to talk about bio-med tech? What a tool....

Antimatter: How can they patent a natural substance? I can see patenting the test FOR the substance, but not the substance itself.

You got it in one.

Patent Office screwed up originally when creating gene patents.

If the gene is naturally occurring, the correct way would be to patent a testing method to isolate and test for the gene. Or a specific technique to manipulate the gene.

What the patent office did instead was patent the gene. So anyone else who wants to test for the gene or do research on it, has to license it from you first.

That said,

If a gene is not naturally occuring, for example, a gene to give humans glowing green skin, I would allow a company to patent that specific gene.

Yes, but a fifth of booze I make you will make you mine.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: It's about time that someone challenged this. When companies were granted patents for existing genes, it went against the novelty requirement of patent law.

"Novelty" - "Novelty" is strictly defined by patent law. An invention cannot be patented if:

The invention was known or used by others in the United States before the patent applicant invented it.

The invention was patented or described in any printed publication, before the patent applicant invented it.

The invention was patented or described in a printed publication in any country more than one year prior to the inventor's U.S. patent application.

The invention was in public use or on sale in the United States more than one year prior to the inventor's U.S. patent application.



They didn't invent the genes, and I'm pretty sure we've been using them for a few billion years.

Yeah but what I don't understand, and hopefully someone can inform me on, is - are they patenting the gene or the novel test they created to extract and or examine it?

Weaver95: y'know, a wise man once said that once you lose everything, you're free to do anything.

Wise, but a little misguided.

The fifth, I give you.

The_Pink_Pimp: Yes, bacteria in your body outnumber your own cells by a factor of 20 to 1.

I knew I shouldn't have played flip cup with those skanks.

weiserfireman: If a gene is not naturally occuring, for example, a gene to give humans glowing green skin, I would allow a company to patent that specific gene.

That would be genetic modification, an invention where sticking bunches of gtca together would lead to a documented effect, created (or at least discovered) by a company.

Besides, can't patents be revoked if someone can prove that they had created said invention prior to the patent holder? I am quite confident that I was in possession of all my genes prior to the first genetic patent, meaning that them companies be byting my code!

I am simply crawling with prior art.

For you folks so against the status quo, keep in mind that the argument at least is that it encourages innovation. My understanding is that you get the patent not for the gene itself, but for the process involved in isolating and identifying it (so novelty is satisfied). Big money is involved in the licensing afterward. I am not saying it is the perfect system, but if you don't reward them with patents and the cash they generate, then why would anyone continue with this work? The riches of research science?

The_Pink_Pimp: Only one fifth?

Actually if you use the metric of cell count, then 19/20ths of the cells in "your" body aren't "you."

Yes, bacteria in your body outnumber your own cells by a factor of 20 to 1.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5527426 (new window)

Thats what I came into this thread for, thank you for providing.

Imagine if the RIAA/MPAA had a patent on your genes? You'd be getting a cease and desist letter every time your cell divided because you are not allowed to "back-up" your media anymore. Every time you have sex, well that's unlawful distribution of copyrighted material. Get a genetic profile? That's reverse engineering in an attempt to circumvent DRM. Pissing in public? Public broadcast without a license.