If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Supreme Court set to decide whether or not big companies have the right to turn you into a piece of their property   (arstechnica.com) divider line 145
    More: Sick, supreme courts, biotechnology companies, Federal Circuit, gene patents, human biology, patent lawyers, genetic predisposition, breast cancer gene  
•       •       •

5181 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Apr 2013 at 8:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-15 08:34:58 AM
If I were in charge of things you wouldn't be able to patent and genomic sequence found in nature.  This would include genomic sequences capable of combining with natural genes ala Monsanto.
 
2013-04-15 08:42:14 AM

lewismarktwo: If I were in charge of things you wouldn't be able to patent and genomic sequence found in nature.  This would include genomic sequences capable of combining with natural genes ala Monsanto.


And require the burden of proof to fall on the company trying to prove the sequence doesn't occur in nature.
 
2013-04-15 08:48:07 AM
A nut owns you?

Myriad Genetics CEO Claims He Owns Your Genes

Today, in a letter filled with non sequiturs and distortions, Myriad Genetics' CEO Peter Meldrum, worried about whether his company will be able to maintain their monopoly on a test for which they charge $4000, responded. Let's look at his claims.
 
2013-04-15 08:49:41 AM
Another software patent thread?

/Nature is a prolific but lazy coder.
 
2013-04-15 08:57:13 AM
in America, et al,  nine tenths of the law is Property ownership.


ain't Freedom great!
 
2013-04-15 08:57:18 AM
Negative, I am a meat popsicle.
 
2013-04-15 08:57:58 AM
Are big companies a wizard?
 
2013-04-15 09:11:08 AM
I'm going to patent fingernails. I'll make a killing from salon royalties

Jackasses
 
2013-04-15 09:14:12 AM
I'm going to patent ones and zeros and sue every single human being who has so much as looked at a computer
 
2013-04-15 09:23:02 AM
The test should be patentable.
The process for extracting the gene sequence should be patentable.
The ingredients of the test, not so much patentable.
 
2013-04-15 09:26:56 AM
When law meets science. That is always an interesting crossroads.
 
2013-04-15 09:30:43 AM
Goddamnit.  I really hate patent threads on fark.  For every person that actually knows what they're talking about, you get 300 comments about how someone will patent air and sue the world for trillions of dollars.  That's not how it works.

Now, regarding this specific issue, there is a legitimate debate to be had whether gene sequences should be patentable.  There is a lot of R&D that goes into discovering them, and it's a very complex process. A blanket rule on gene sequences that will take out the Myriad patent can have a lot of unintended consequences for other types of biotech research.

Personally, I would agree that gene patents should not be allowed, and that, as a whole, society would be better off without them even if some research ends up stymied.  However, it's not as clear-cut as everyone pretends.  This was a very deliberately selected case.  Myriad is a shiatty company and their patent relates to a test for breast cancer, an issue that is very near to everyone's heart (no pun intended).  This may not seem as clear cut if it dealt with a patent for an isolated dna sequence derived from a rare flower in the amazon that could be used in creating medicine.
 
2013-04-15 09:37:43 AM

enry: Negative, I am a meat popsicle.


SMOKE YOU!!!

*shakes head* Wrong answer.
 
2013-04-15 09:38:31 AM

SaladMonkey: Goddamnit.  I really hate patent threads on fark.  For every person that actually knows what they're talking about, you get 300 comments about how someone will patent air and sue the world for trillions of dollars.  That's not how it works.

Now, regarding this specific issue, there is a legitimate debate to be had whether gene sequences should be patentable.   There is a lot of R&D that goes into discovering them, and it's a very complex process. A blanket rule on gene sequences that will take out the Myriad patent can have a lot of unintended consequences for other types of biotech research.

Personally, I would agree that gene patents should not be allowed, and that, as a whole, society would be better off without them even if some research ends up stymied.  However, it's not as clear-cut as everyone pretends.  This was a very deliberately selected case.  Myriad is a shiatty company and their patent relates to a test for breast cancer, an issue that is very near to everyone's heart (no pun intended).  This may not seem as clear cut if it dealt with a patent for an isolated dna sequence derived from a rare flower in the amazon that could be used in creating medicine.


Patents do not exist to reward or incentivize effort or expenditure. They exist to reward and incentivise invention.
 
2013-04-15 09:39:25 AM

lewismarktwo: If I were in charge of things you wouldn't be able to patent and genomic sequence found in nature.  This would include genomic sequences capable of combining with natural genes ala Monsanto.


The standard of law that has been held in patent cases is that you cannot patent "abstract ideas, natural phenomena and rules of nature."  Monsanto is genetically modifying/creating plants that has never existed in any form in nature, which is why they are patentable.  It's not like they stumbled upon some RoundUp-proof soybean seed and said, "hey, we want to sell this!"  In my opinion, all the genetics company did in this case was figure out that a specific gene sequence had implications in cancer and slapped a patent on it.  You can say that they "isolated" it or discovered the mutations that caused cancer, but they're still only highlighting a naturally occurring phenomenon.  They didn't create the gene or modify the gene.  Thus, I'd slap them down on principle alone, even more so because of the fact that they're prohibiting further research and charging exorbitant fees for medically-necessary testing using the gene.
 
2013-04-15 09:39:43 AM

SaladMonkey: Goddamnit.  I really hate patent threads on fark.  For every person that actually knows what they're talking about, you get 300 comments about how someone will patent air and sue the world for trillions of dollars.  That's not how it works.

Now, regarding this specific issue, there is a legitimate debate to be had whether gene sequences should be patentable.  There is a lot of R&D that goes into discovering them, and it's a very complex process. A blanket rule on gene sequences that will take out the Myriad patent can have a lot of unintended consequences for other types of biotech research.

Personally, I would agree that gene patents should not be allowed, and that, as a whole, society would be better off without them even if some research ends up stymied.  However, it's not as clear-cut as everyone pretends.  This was a very deliberately selected case.  Myriad is a shiatty company and their patent relates to a test for breast cancer, an issue that is very near to everyone's heart (no pun intended).  This may not seem as clear cut if it dealt with a patent for an isolated dna sequence derived from a rare flower in the amazon that could be used in creating medicine.


Did the company create that dna sequence? No? Then it shouldn't be patentable, no matter how rare it is.
 
2013-04-15 09:42:51 AM

SaladMonkey: Goddamnit.  I really hate patent threads on fark.  For every person that actually knows what they're talking about, you get 300 comments about how someone will patent air and sue the world for trillions of dollars.  That's not how it works.

Now, regarding this specific issue, there is a legitimate debate to be had whether gene sequences should be patentable.  There is a lot of R&D that goes into discovering them, and it's a very complex process. A blanket rule on gene sequences that will take out the Myriad patent can have a lot of unintended consequences for other types of biotech research.

Personally, I would agree that gene patents should not be allowed, and that, as a whole, society would be better off without them even if some research ends up stymied.  However, it's not as clear-cut as everyone pretends.  This was a very deliberately selected case.  Myriad is a shiatty company and their patent relates to a test for breast cancer, an issue that is very near to everyone's heart (no pun intended).  This may not seem as clear cut if it dealt with a patent for an isolated dna sequence derived from a rare flower in the amazon that could be used in creating medicine.


This might be the case, but we're weighing two things. Ease of information vs discovery. If gene patents are allowed, we are never going to get a cheap personalized genome in any sort of reasonable time period. It's not going to happen. 4k here, 6k there. It's going to add up.

Myriad is a shiatball because they essentially patented a fact (BRCA1 mutation correlates to x % increase in cancer) and then proceeded to not take anything further. They remained in the fact stage becuase Why not? What should be happening is that we have the public footing the bill (Which in this case they did. BRCA was taken most of the way on public funding, One of the PIs dropped out when they were almost there and filed a patent on his 'Independent' investigation), and then companies like myriad patenting things like Gene therapy. Actual treatments, not the ability to read code. (Which is pretty much at the heart of this case. They don't claim to have ownership of the code inside you, they claim to own all isolated copies of the gene, which is pretty much requisite to reading the farking sequence. It's a stupid end run that the appeals court accepted.)
 
2013-04-15 09:48:36 AM

CPennypacker: SaladMonkey: Goddamnit.  I really hate patent threads on fark.  For every person that actually knows what they're talking about, you get 300 comments about how someone will patent air and sue the world for trillions of dollars.  That's not how it works.

Now, regarding this specific issue, there is a legitimate debate to be had whether gene sequences should be patentable.   There is a lot of R&D that goes into discovering them, and it's a very complex process. A blanket rule on gene sequences that will take out the Myriad patent can have a lot of unintended consequences for other types of biotech research.

Personally, I would agree that gene patents should not be allowed, and that, as a whole, society would be better off without them even if some research ends up stymied.  However, it's not as clear-cut as everyone pretends.  This was a very deliberately selected case.  Myriad is a shiatty company and their patent relates to a test for breast cancer, an issue that is very near to everyone's heart (no pun intended).  This may not seem as clear cut if it dealt with a patent for an isolated dna sequence derived from a rare flower in the amazon that could be used in creating medicine.

Patents do not exist to reward or incentivize effort or expenditure. They exist to reward and incentivise invention.


There is also a lot of invention in how to find gene sequences that are related to diseases.  I still don't think that the sequence should be patentable though.  Another related area is drug targets.  If a gene can be patented then maybe a target could be as well.
 
2013-04-15 09:48:49 AM

lewismarktwo: If I were in charge of things you wouldn't be able to patent and genomic sequence found in nature.  This would include genomic sequences capable of combining with natural genes ala Monsanto.


The problem is that the claimed sequence isn't found in nature. Specifically, the patent claim is:
1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.
And isolated DNA aren't found anywhere.

It'd be like saying a claim of "1. A monopole" is found in nature, because we have bipolar magnets, and that's like, two monopoles joined together, right?

So, yeah, the current rule is exactly what you'd do if you were in charge of things: you cannot patent things that are found in nature. However, the current rule and your proposed rule don't apply to this odd situation.
 
2013-04-15 09:49:34 AM

CPennypacker: Patents do not exist to reward or incentivize effort or expenditure. They exist to reward and incentivise invention.


Patents don't exist to reward anything. They exist to incentivise public disclosure and the destruction of trade secrets.
 
2013-04-15 09:51:28 AM

satanorsanta: If a gene can be patented then maybe a target could be as well.


Maybe an isolated binding site on a target, but not the target itself.
 
2013-04-15 09:54:50 AM

Theaetetus: CPennypacker: Patents do not exist to reward or incentivize effort or expenditure. They exist to reward and incentivise invention.

Patents don't exist to reward anything. They exist to incentivise public disclosure and the destruction of trade secrets.


That's fine but neither of those things is effort or expenditure
 
2013-04-15 09:54:50 AM
Frankly, I wouldn't invalidate this under 35 USC 101. I'd invalidate it under 35 USC 112, because I'm a crazy farker and that's how I roll. Specifically, the researchers identified the correlation between BRCA1 and breast cancer, but they didn't know  why there's a correlation. I'd say that they'd only done half the invention at that point.
 
2013-04-15 10:05:29 AM
From TFA:

"Although isolated DNA is removed from its native cellular and chromosomal environment, it has also been manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body," wrote Judge Alan Lourie for the court's majority. In his view, that difference was sufficient to merit a patent for Myriad.

But his colleague, Judge William Bryson, disagreed. "The informational content of the nucleotide sequences is the critical aspect of these molecules," he wrote. He noted that the chemical differences between the "natural" and "isolated" version of the BRCA genes were not even mentioned in Myriad's patent claim.


It should be noted that Bryson has a B.A. degree, while Lourie has a Masters in organic chemistry and a Ph.D. in chemistry. Don't farkers typically complain about judges who aren't schooled in the relevant technology hearing patent cases?
 
2013-04-15 10:17:59 AM

Theaetetus: lewismarktwo: If I were in charge of things you wouldn't be able to patent and genomic sequence found in nature.  This would include genomic sequences capable of combining with natural genes ala Monsanto.

The problem is that the claimed sequence isn't found in nature. Specifically, the patent claim is:
1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.
And isolated DNA aren't found anywhere.

It'd be like saying a claim of "1. A monopole" is found in nature, because we have bipolar magnets, and that's like, two monopoles joined together, right?

So, yeah, the current rule is exactly what you'd do if you were in charge of things: you cannot patent things that are found in nature. However, the current rule and your proposed rule don't apply to this odd situation.


More like saying that, since pure gold isn't found in nature, but only in mixed ores with other metals, I can patent gold if I purify it.  Products of nature shouldn't be patentable, no matter whether they are existing in their natural state, or isolated and purified in some way.

Naturally-occurring DNA sequences shouldn't be patentable, regardless of whether that sequence is existing in a cell of if it is purified/amplified in a lab.  They are still products of nature either way.

The process of isolating and detecting that sequence can be patentable.  Or if you are modifying that sequence in some way, that may be patentable.

But I don't think simply isolating or amplifying a naturally-existing molecule meets the standard where you can now say you have created that thing.
 
2013-04-15 10:20:55 AM

Doc Daneeka: Or if you are modifying that sequence in some way, that may be patentable.


Theaetetus: "Although isolated DNA is removed from its native cellular and chromosomal environment, it has also been manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body," wrote Judge Alan Lourie for the court's majority.


So, yes?
 
2013-04-15 10:24:08 AM

Theaetetus: lewismarktwo: If I were in charge of things you wouldn't be able to patent and genomic sequence found in nature.  This would include genomic sequences capable of combining with natural genes ala Monsanto.

The problem is that the claimed sequence isn't found in nature. Specifically, the patent claim is:
1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.
And isolated DNA aren't found anywhere.

It'd be like saying a claim of "1. A monopole" is found in nature, because we have bipolar magnets, and that's like, two monopoles joined together, right?

So, yeah, the current rule is exactly what you'd do if you were in charge of things: you cannot patent things that are found in nature. However, the current rule and your proposed rule don't apply to this odd situation.


You're an idiot.

You've used this example before. The process of isolating a DNA sequence is trivially easy. The process is not under patent. This is not a monopole. Stop trying to extend the patent system to everything you can possibly
 
2013-04-15 10:25:32 AM

Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: Or if you are modifying that sequence in some way, that may be patentable.

Theaetetus: "Although isolated DNA is removed from its native cellular and chromosomal environment, it has also been manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body," wrote Judge Alan Lourie for the court's majority.

So, yes?


My argument was that their particular process of isolation/detection should be patentable.  But the sequence itself (i.e. the information encoded by the gene variant) should not be.

If someone else develops a different method of detecting the same sequence in patients, they should be free to do so.
 
2013-04-15 10:28:21 AM

Kinek: You're an idiot


Oh, you're still here? I thought you fled with your tail between your legs after that last patent thread in which you got proved so wrong.

You've used this example before.

Yup, it's a good one.

The process of isolating a DNA sequence is trivially easy. The process is not under patent.

Then why are you bringing up an irrelevant point? Yes, the process is easy, but the process is not part of this patent, nor does the process of isolating a monopole have to be part of a monopole patent. Shiat, Kinek, do you even know what you're saying? Have you had a stroke? Is that it? Is anyone near Kinek that can get him a doctor?
 
2013-04-15 10:28:37 AM

Theaetetus: From TFA:

"Although isolated DNA is removed from its native cellular and chromosomal environment, it has also been manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body," wrote Judge Alan Lourie for the court's majority. In his view, that difference was sufficient to merit a patent for Myriad.

But his colleague, Judge William Bryson, disagreed. "The informational content of the nucleotide sequences is the critical aspect of these molecules," he wrote. He noted that the chemical differences between the "natural" and "isolated" version of the BRCA genes were not even mentioned in Myriad's patent claim.

It should be noted that Bryson has a B.A. degree, while Lourie has a Masters in organic chemistry and a Ph.D. in chemistry. Don't farkers typically complain about judges who aren't schooled in the relevant technology hearing patent cases?


Lourie is a farking idiot. The point of the isolated DNA is that it's exactly the same as the sequence found in the body. THat's the point. I wouldn't want a xerox machine that changes random letters every time I make a copy. The only thing she could possibly be thinking of is stuff like DNA methylation, which also isn't covered by this patent (Which brings up an interesting case about whether this is an epigenetic erffect and whether that's covered by the patent as well). Lourie started at patentability and moved backwards to try to justify it, rather than actually looking at validity. Just because you have a degree in a field doesn't make you a soulless boot licking shill.
 
2013-04-15 10:28:45 AM

Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: Or if you are modifying that sequence in some way, that may be patentable.

Theaetetus: "Although isolated DNA is removed from its native cellular and chromosomal environment, it has also been manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body," wrote Judge Alan Lourie for the court's majority.

So, yes?


They aren't modifying the sequence
 
2013-04-15 10:30:47 AM

Doc Daneeka: Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: Or if you are modifying that sequence in some way, that may be patentable.

Theaetetus: "Although isolated DNA is removed from its native cellular and chromosomal environment, it has also been manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body," wrote Judge Alan Lourie for the court's majority.

So, yes?

My argument was that their particular process of isolation/detection should be patentable.  But the sequence itself (i.e. the information encoded by the gene variant) should not be.


Why couldn't the isolated sequence - a new, chemically modified molecule - be patentable, while the information encoded by the gene remain unpatentable?

If someone else develops a different method of detecting the same sequence in patients, they should be free to do so.

If someone can develop a different method of detecting the sequence that doesn't involve creating the claimed isolated molecule, then they wouldn't infringe the patent.
 
2013-04-15 10:32:50 AM

Kinek: Lourie is a farking idiot... The only thing she could possibly be thinking of...


Lol. When you can't even get a simple fact like that straight, should you really be impugning Mr. Lourie's expertise?
 
2013-04-15 10:35:55 AM

Theaetetus: Kinek: You're an idiot

Oh, you're still here? I thought you fled with your tail between your legs after that last patent thread in which you got proved so wrong.

You've used this example before.

Yup, it's a good one.

The process of isolating a DNA sequence is trivially easy. The process is not under patent.

Then why are you bringing up an irrelevant point? Yes, the process is easy, but the process is not part of this patent, nor does the process of isolating a monopole have to be part of a monopole patent. Shiat, Kinek, do you even know what you're saying? Have you had a stroke? Is that it? Is anyone near Kinek that can get him a doctor?


You mean the thread where you claimed it was on me to prove that you don't defend every half-assed patent that you come across? YOu tried that in a feminist thread. Didn't go so well. You're a petty little chucklefark, aren't you?

And no, the monopole is functionally different from a dipole. If I took their isolated  gene and re-inserted it in exactly the same place that it came from, it would function almost exactly the same as it did before (Barring things like methylation cues, histones, and other epigenetic cues.)

THe point is that they've literally done nothing here except patent a fact, hearkening to the prometheus case, and exactly why this is being re-examined. The process of isolation is simple PCR detection. Or hell, it may be Illumina, but the idea is the same. THey've contributed nothing on the process front. They're also not doing anything with the gene itself. They're literally squatting on a fact. That's all they have. THat's why they tried to do the whole end run with the isolated sequence, but the point of the isolated sequence is that it IS EXACTLY THE SAME as the genomic sequence. If it wasn't, then this test would be farking worthless.
 
2013-04-15 10:39:26 AM

Theaetetus: Kinek: Lourie is a farking idiot... The only thing she could possibly be thinking of...

Lol. When you can't even get a simple fact like that straight, should you really be impugning Mr. Lourie's expertise?


Except methylation cues aren't important here. THey're patenting the code. The methylation cues are taken out so that the code can be read. Which is again, part of the process, and not somethinjg that myriad itself brought up. THey're using someone elses tools on something that's not patentable, and have contributed nothing to the progress of the science. In fact, BRCA1 and 2 were GOING to be discovered by a public research project until one of the PIs broke ranks at the last minute and patented the code itself. But of course you love the small inventors and first to disclosures who place their own profit over public researchers and essentially wave their dicks at the taxpayers, don't you you little farkwit.
 
2013-04-15 10:42:16 AM

Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: Or if you are modifying that sequence in some way, that may be patentable.

Theaetetus: "Although isolated DNA is removed from its native cellular and chromosomal environment, it has also been manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body," wrote Judge Alan Lourie for the court's majority.

So, yes?

My argument was that their particular process of isolation/detection should be patentable.  But the sequence itself (i.e. the information encoded by the gene variant) should not be.

Why couldn't the isolated sequence - a new, chemically modified molecule - be patentable, while the information encoded by the gene remain unpatentable?

If someone else develops a different method of detecting the same sequence in patients, they should be free to do so.

If someone can develop a different method of detecting the sequence that doesn't involve creating the claimed isolated molecule, then they wouldn't infringe the patent.


Because the only way to read the gene is through creating copies at the moment. The only other way that's single molecule sequencing is prone to high rates of error which would be inappropriate for something like this. Pacbio sequencing is not appropriate for SNP detection. But once again, Neither the beginning point (The genome) nor the endpoint (The fact) is patentable, but yet a buffer copy is? How does this make any farking sense except in the mind of a patent buggerer like yourself?
 
2013-04-15 10:53:50 AM

BizarreMan: The test should be patentable.
The process for extracting the gene sequence should be patentable.
The ingredients of the test, not so much patentable.


Your comment in being lost in the noise, probably because it makes too much sense and people want to argue around edges too much...
 
2013-04-15 10:55:37 AM

Theaetetus: Why couldn't the isolated sequence - a new, chemically modified molecule - be patentable, while the information encoded by the gene remain unpatentable?


Because that is like trying to copyright one page or passage from King Lear or Charles Dickens as a new, original work.
 
2013-04-15 10:57:43 AM

RyansPrivates: BizarreMan: The test should be patentable.
The process for extracting the gene sequence should be patentable.
The ingredients of the test, not so much patentable.

Your comment in being lost in the noise, probably because it makes too much sense and people want to argue around edges too much...


The test and the process are both under somebody elses patents, or have expired. It's a simple PCR and sequence analysis. A high school student with access to a lab could run the test. All of those, even done in house, are not things that myriad has come up with, or has a patent on. The only thing they have is the sequence itself. So no, they don't even have the ground to fight on that.

Additionally, how is this NOT an end-run around the Clinton announcement that genomic sequence cannot be patented? If the only way to read it is through buffer copies, then for all intents and purposes, you HAVE patented the genomic sequence.
 
2013-04-15 11:00:25 AM

Cubicle Jockey: Theaetetus: Why couldn't the isolated sequence - a new, chemically modified molecule - be patentable, while the information encoded by the gene remain unpatentable?

Because that is like trying to copyright one page or passage from King Lear or Charles Dickens as a new, original work.


This is a Good analogy. The sequence in this case has been taken out of context and even possibly had its font and case changed (epigenetic effects), but it's still the exact same page or paragraph, and the process of copy and pasting has not altered the substance of the passage.
 
2013-04-15 11:03:59 AM

SaladMonkey: Goddamnit.  I really hate patent threads on fark.  For every person that actually knows what they're talking about, you get 300 comments about how someone will patent air and sue the world for trillions of dollars.  That's not how it works.

Now, regarding this specific issue, there is a legitimate debate to be had whether gene sequences should be patentable.  There is a lot of R&D that goes into discovering them, and it's a very complex process. A blanket rule on gene sequences that will take out the Myriad patent can have a lot of unintended consequences for other types of biotech research.

Personally, I would agree that gene patents should not be allowed, and that, as a whole, society would be better off without them even if some research ends up stymied.  However, it's not as clear-cut as everyone pretends.  This was a very deliberately selected case.  Myriad is a shiatty company and their patent relates to a test for breast cancer, an issue that is very near to everyone's heart (no pun intended).  This may not seem as clear cut if it dealt with a patent for an isolated dna sequence derived from a rare flower in the amazon that could be used in creating medicine.


You say that, but how is patenting genes fundamentally different from patenting air? The "inventors" invented neither one of those things, they found them, already existing. It's not like a telephone, which had never existed before.
 
2013-04-15 11:05:26 AM

Theaetetus: while Lourie has a Masters in organic chemistry and a Ph.D. in chemistry


Who previously worked for Monsanto and GlaxoSmithKline.
Jus' sayin', s'all...
 
2013-04-15 11:07:13 AM

Lord Dimwit: SaladMonkey: Goddamnit.  I really hate patent threads on fark.  For every person that actually knows what they're talking about, you get 300 comments about how someone will patent air and sue the world for trillions of dollars.  That's not how it works.

Now, regarding this specific issue, there is a legitimate debate to be had whether gene sequences should be patentable.  There is a lot of R&D that goes into discovering them, and it's a very complex process. A blanket rule on gene sequences that will take out the Myriad patent can have a lot of unintended consequences for other types of biotech research.

Personally, I would agree that gene patents should not be allowed, and that, as a whole, society would be better off without them even if some research ends up stymied.  However, it's not as clear-cut as everyone pretends.  This was a very deliberately selected case.  Myriad is a shiatty company and their patent relates to a test for breast cancer, an issue that is very near to everyone's heart (no pun intended).  This may not seem as clear cut if it dealt with a patent for an isolated dna sequence derived from a rare flower in the amazon that could be used in creating medicine.

You say that, but how is patenting genes fundamentally different from patenting air? The "inventors" invented neither one of those things, they found them, already existing. It's not like a telephone, which had never existed before.


I hate to be on the other side of this as well, but he's right. It's more nuanced than this generally.

Not in this case though. What's happened here is that they've taken some air, shoved it in a bottle, and declared that the air in the bottle is patentable.

/See also Theateus's dumbass comment about monopoles.
 
2013-04-15 11:09:44 AM

Kinek: Lord Dimwit: SaladMonkey: Goddamnit.  I really hate patent threads on fark.  For every person that actually knows what they're talking about, you get 300 comments about how someone will patent air and sue the world for trillions of dollars.  That's not how it works.

Now, regarding this specific issue, there is a legitimate debate to be had whether gene sequences should be patentable.  There is a lot of R&D that goes into discovering them, and it's a very complex process. A blanket rule on gene sequences that will take out the Myriad patent can have a lot of unintended consequences for other types of biotech research.

Personally, I would agree that gene patents should not be allowed, and that, as a whole, society would be better off without them even if some research ends up stymied.  However, it's not as clear-cut as everyone pretends.  This was a very deliberately selected case.  Myriad is a shiatty company and their patent relates to a test for breast cancer, an issue that is very near to everyone's heart (no pun intended).  This may not seem as clear cut if it dealt with a patent for an isolated dna sequence derived from a rare flower in the amazon that could be used in creating medicine.

You say that, but how is patenting genes fundamentally different from patenting air? The "inventors" invented neither one of those things, they found them, already existing. It's not like a telephone, which had never existed before.

I hate to be on the other side of this as well, but he's right. It's more nuanced than this generally.

Not in this case though. What's happened here is that they've taken some air, shoved it in a bottle, and declared that the air in the bottle is patentable.

/See also Theateus's dumbass comment about monopoles.


Also, Myriad has declared that essentially any way of testing the air through isolation is infringing on their patents, even though they own neither the bottle, the air, or even the putting of the air in the bottle. They own the air isolated from all the other air. DONT MESS WITH THEM.
 
2013-04-15 11:10:07 AM

Doc Daneeka: More like saying that, since pure gold isn't found in nature, but only in mixed ores with other metals, I can patent gold if I purify it.


Iron would be better. You can find small bits of pure gold here and there since it's not reactive.
Iron will only be found in compounds. Pure iron hasn't existed natrually on this planet since prior to the oxygen catastrophe 2.4 billion years ago.
 
2013-04-15 11:11:14 AM

Kinek: Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: Or if you are modifying that sequence in some way, that may be patentable.

Theaetetus: "Although isolated DNA is removed from its native cellular and chromosomal environment, it has also been manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body," wrote Judge Alan Lourie for the court's majority.

So, yes?

My argument was that their particular process of isolation/detection should be patentable.  But the sequence itself (i.e. the information encoded by the gene variant) should not be.

Why couldn't the isolated sequence - a new, chemically modified molecule - be patentable, while the information encoded by the gene remain unpatentable?

If someone else develops a different method of detecting the same sequence in patients, they should be free to do so.

If someone can develop a different method of detecting the sequence that doesn't involve creating the claimed isolated molecule, then they wouldn't infringe the patent.

Because the only way to read the gene is through creating copies at the moment. The only other way that's single molecule sequencing is prone to high rates of error which would be inappropriate for something like this. Pacbio sequencing is not appropriate for SNP detection. But once again, Neither the beginning point (The genome) nor the endpoint (The fact) is patentable, but yet a buffer copy is? How does this make any farking sense except in the mind of a patent buggerer like yourself?


Wow...that escalated into petty name calling pretty quickly.  Bottom line is that the Supreme Court will settle the debate for the foreseeable future (hopefully today's argument will give some insight regarding the way it is leaning).  As a general thought, if reasonable educated minds are differing in the likely outcome and the best outcome, then the issue isn't simple.  So, it's probably best not to take it so personally.

Additionally, I am a little curious about how you would bugger a patent......
 
2013-04-15 11:11:16 AM

Kinek: You mean the thread where you claimed it was on me to prove that you don't defend every half-assed patent that you come across? YOu tried that in a feminist thread. Didn't go so well. You're a petty little chucklefark, aren't you?


No, I mean the thread in which you repeatedly tried to put words in my mouth that I never said, and then when someone provided evidence that I never said them, you disappeared like a coward. So if it's being "petty" to not let a lying coward get away with that, then I'm petty. But most people wouldn't define it that way.

And no, the monopole is functionally different from a dipole. If I took their isolated  gene and re-inserted it in exactly the same place that it came from, it would function almost exactly the same as it did before (Barring things like methylation cues, histones, and other epigenetic cues.)

In other words, they'd have to modify it before they could re-insert it.

THe point is that they've literally done nothing here except patent a fact, hearkening to the prometheus case, and exactly why this is being re-examined.

What fact? The correlation? Except that that doesn't appear anywhere in the claim, which you'll note I pasted above in the thread. Well, everyone else would note that - you apparently don't believe that it's possible to quote a source, so I'm sure that your brain selectively edits out whenever it happens.
 
2013-04-15 11:11:49 AM

Cubicle Jockey: Theaetetus: while Lourie has a Masters in organic chemistry and a Ph.D. in chemistry

Who previously worked for Monsanto and GlaxoSmithKline.
Jus' sayin', s'all...


See this face? This is my not surprised at all to learn this face.

/Just because you're smart, doesn't mean you won't justify shiat because your worldview is so warped.
 
2013-04-15 11:14:35 AM

SaladMonkey: Wow...that escalated into petty name calling pretty quickly.


Kinek is still defensive over being caught lying in the last thread, so it's understandable.
 
2013-04-15 11:17:26 AM
Oh, and because it's funny to see Kinek get caught again:

Kinek: You mean the thread where you claimed it was on me to prove that you don't defend every half-assed patent that you come across?


What Kinek thinks "defending" a patent looks like:
Theaetetus: Frankly, I wouldn't invalidate this under 35 USC 101. I'd invalidate it under 35 USC 112
 
Displayed 50 of 145 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report