Supreme Court Will Decide the Patentability of Genes

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
After much legal wrangling and reviews at different levels of the court system, the Supreme Court will finally decide on the ability to patent a gene…. again. A ruling by the Court is expected by the end of June 2013.

"Life's instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts."
Click to expand...
 
The company did not invent the gene so therefore no patent, simple isn't it. Now judge, throw out the case.
 
I am a little schizophrenic on this one ... I can understand and agree that natural processes shouldn't monopolized by the first to discover them ... however, it does cost a lot of time, money, and resources to map out these genes ... a patent would provide companies some protection of their investment in this ...

maybe they could treat these like FRAND patents in electronics so that everyone has access but the companies that invest to discover these genes can get a return on their investment ... we aren't talking about Non-profits here and gene research takes LOTS of money
 
Wolfkin said:
The company did not invent the gene so therefore no patent, simple isn't it. Now judge, throw out the case.
Click to expand...

Some people believe that without the exclusive right to price gouge people it would be impossible to fund research into working with genes. I still want to know why some medications cost hundreds of dollars a bottle yet they have been manufactured for decades. If only these companies knew how to reduce costs of manufacturing like the semiconductor industry. I'm just talking out of my ass here but I doubt they put forth any effort to reduce costs of manufacturing. Who wants to make 50% profit on $10 when you can make 50% profit on $400?
 
Wolfkin said:
The company did not invent the gene so therefore no patent, simple isn't it. Now judge, throw out the case.
Click to expand...

From my understanding, they are trying to patent a natural occuring object because they have found a way to manufacture it. They are not saying you should be able to patent any natural occuring object, but if you can "create" the object THEN you can patent it.

My understanding of this would be that if you found a way to manufacture water, you would be allowed to patent water.

I also see alot of moms and dads patenting their children....as a parent could I sue my childs employer for royalties at that point??
 
kbrickley said:
I am a little schizophrenic on this one ... I can understand and agree that natural processes shouldn't monopolized by the first to discover them ... however, it does cost a lot of time, money, and resources to map out these genes ... a patent would provide companies some protection of their investment in this ...

maybe they could treat these like FRAND patents in electronics so that everyone has access but the companies that invest to discover these genes can get a return on their investment ... we aren't talking about Non-profits here and gene research takes LOTS of money
Click to expand...

The use of patents doesn't apply to things like this. Lately things that shouldn't be patented, are getting patented. To patent a gene is going to cause too many issues to count.
 
What ever happened to having your name stuck to the thing you discovered with recognition... and that's it?

Patent discovery? Fuck you.
 
kbrickley said:
however, it does cost a lot of time, money, and resources to map out these genes ... a patent would provide companies some protection of their investment in this ...
Click to expand...
So, do we allow map makers to patent how roads are made?
 
niconx said:
Some people believe that without the exclusive right to price gouge people it would be impossible to fund research into working with genes. I still want to know why some medications cost hundreds of dollars a bottle yet they have been manufactured for decades. If only these companies knew how to reduce costs of manufacturing like the semiconductor industry. I'm just talking out of my ass here but I doubt they put forth any effort to reduce costs of manufacturing. Who wants to make 50% profit on $10 when you can make 50% profit on $400?
Click to expand...

Pricing does not need to relate in costs that way. They could reduce the cost to manufacture to $0.01 a bottle and the price would still remain fixed at $400 if that were to maximize revenue. They still will reduce costs as there is an incentive there to increase profit margins.

The reason for the semiconductor industry (your example used) being in a situation where lowered costs lead to lower prices is due to competition. If a company does not pass on cost savings to buyers another company will offer an alternative product that does drawing away sales. If however a industry is noncompetitive than this does not occur as such there is no incentive to lower prices despite lower costs.
 
kbrickley said:
I am a little schizophrenic on this one ... I can understand and agree that natural processes shouldn't monopolized by the first to discover them ... however, it does cost a lot of time, money, and resources to map out these genes ... a patent would provide companies some protection of their investment in this ...

maybe they could treat these like FRAND patents in electronics so that everyone has access but the companies that invest to discover these genes can get a return on their investment ... we aren't talking about Non-profits here and gene research takes LOTS of money
Click to expand...

I think I am with you on this. They spend millions, even billions, in this research, and should be allowed to profit off it. At the same time they should not be able to hold sway over every instance of that genetic code providing it occurs naturally. Perhaps the process used to recreate said genes, and not the genes themselves should be patentable, or very short term patents that exclude being able to sue over genetic material created naturally. It is definitely an issue I hope the courts find a reasonable middle ground on. All the way one way or the other would not be beneficial to society.

Eisenblut said:
So, do we allow map makers to patent how roads are made?
Click to expand...
Worst analogy ever. Have you been drinking?
 
Did anyone read the particulars? They are not trying to patent any of your complete genomes. (Where some of you get the idea that you are genetically desirable enough to patent is beyond me.) They are trying to patent results of their cancer research. Yes, gene patents are certain to be a very tricky issue, but if they can't patent them in a way that allows them a ROI, private industry is not going to do this research. And government funded research is not even a drop in the bucket compared to what big pharma spends. If you can do without the benefits of big pharma spending billions a year to research this stuff, then by all means root for the scotus to put the axe to gene patents and research.

We need a clear, well defined, decision that lies somewhere in the middle on this.
 
I don't mind them giving them some protection, but once we start it, company like Apple's gonna come and one day they're gonna start patenting you.
 
there will probably be some kind of "fear mongering" that normal reproduction isn't safe (which with the number of STDs etc and various "incompatabilities" or "rogue genes"), or a focus about how many birth defects there are (also the chances of a sucessful pregnancy are something like 9/10, so 1 in every 10). Then people will be offered more "safe" alternatives, much like the concept of "designer babies" where you can pick and choose things from the parents chromosones, and pick things like gender/characteristics and make the best of both of you, rather than "rolling the dice". As this would be something which was "best' for the child (I mean who wants their child to suffer medical conditions or low intellegence or just be ugly?) more parents would probably consider this.

This would have a few posible negative effects. 1) less "rogue" genes might make humans more suceptable to dieseases like bananas. 2) the lack of variety and "rogue" genes could slow/stop human evolution. 3) the high cost of the treatment would make 2 teirs of people. A lower class which had defects and sickness, and a rich class of people who could afford the treatments. The low classes would likely not be considered for the same employment, as they were "defective" and wouldn't last so long, so all the high paying/important jobs would go to the engineered upper class. Even though lots of histories "greats" have been born defective in some way, e.g. Einstein, and defects are often how a species evolves.

It's pretty sci fi, but based on human history not really that far fetched. :D
 
infojunkie said:
I don't mind them giving them some protection, but once we start it, company like Apple's gonna come and one day they're gonna start patenting you.
Click to expand...

Lobby for a law that grants each US citizen exclusive and unimpeded right to the use of the genome they were born with until natural legal death, and for a century afterwords to prevent unauthorized cloning.

The above sounds like a joke right now. Will it still sound like a joke 30 years from now?:eek:
 
If they couldn't patent the actual gene itself you could grant any company that discovers the purpose of a gene a blanket patent for all treatments associated with that gene ... that would protect their investment without violating the individuals rights ... it would also provide an incentive for companies to identify the purpose of a gene since that would be the only way to patent the hypothetical treatments ... it isn't perfect but it would protect the research money investment
 
Keep an eye out to see the Supreme court justices in lovely Tahiti, on a retreat sponsored by Monsanto,Pfizer and others
 
westrock2000 said:
From my understanding, they are trying to patent a natural occuring object because they have found a way to manufacture it. They are not saying you should be able to patent any natural occuring object, but if you can "create" the object THEN you can patent it.

My understanding of this would be that if you found a way to manufacture water, you would be allowed to patent water.

I also see alot of moms and dads patenting their children....as a parent could I sue my childs employer for royalties at that point??
Click to expand...

That is different. What you are talking about is patent on a manufacturing process and that I'm all for, if you invent a way to manufacture something you should get the patent on the process but this company want the patent on the natural accuring gene.
 
Do these patents expire quickly? It wouldn't be long before millions or billions in research money is no longer required. When that happens, patents will be used like software patents of today.
 
Patents are all bullshit monopolistic privileges granted by the state and their cronies. There is not one shred of *credible* evidence that patents promote innovation (and I challenge the statist apologists to prove me otherwise).

Gene patents are the worst of all because, in effect, gene patents are about legalizing slavery. In effect, the state is saying that a person does not have the right to access the contents of their own body; that, part of their own body is, in effect, owned by a corporation. However much the research may or may not have cost is irrelevant; a trillion dollars of research does not justify giving someone ownership of everyone's bodies.

This is such a dangerous precedent that, regardless of what the Supreme Clown Court says, people have a moral imperative to ignore it and to resist it using whatever force is necessary for self-defense.
 
limitedaccess said:
Pricing does not need to relate in costs that way. They could reduce the cost to manufacture to $0.01 a bottle and the price would still remain fixed at $400 if that were to maximize revenue. They still will reduce costs as there is an incentive there to increase profit margins.

The reason for the semiconductor industry (your example used) being in a situation where lowered costs lead to lower prices is due to competition. If a company does not pass on cost savings to buyers another company will offer an alternative product that does drawing away sales. If however a industry is noncompetitive than this does not occur as such there is no incentive to lower prices despite lower costs.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying but if they did that they wouldn't be able to legitimize high prices to policy makers and insurance companies if they can't prove a high cost of manufacturing.
 
westrock2000 said:
From my understanding, they are trying to patent a natural occuring object because they have found a way to manufacture it. They are not saying you should be able to patent any natural occuring object, but if you can "create" the object THEN you can patent it.

My understanding of this would be that if you found a way to manufacture water, you would be allowed to patent water.

I also see alot of moms and dads patenting their children....as a parent could I sue my childs employer for royalties at that point??
Click to expand...

Not buying that argument, people have been making water for a long time. I can only see patenting a way to manipulate genes or a particular process involved or the devices used to do it. If someone were to get a patent on a particular gene sequence, it would completely solidify the patent offices lack of credibility. Then again, laboratory rats are genetically patented already...so who knows.
 
Pretty sure there's prior art here. Like, billions of years worth.
 
damicatz said:
..... However much the research may or may not have cost is irrelevant; a trillion dollars of research does not justify giving someone ownership of everyone's bodies.
Click to expand...

Or any living thing imo. How did we even get to a point where the idea of patenting these things is found acceptable by many. The food introductory is a joke and completely monopolized now. Being able to patent self-replicating seeds is crazy.

The entire patent system needs the be thrown out and rewriten. The idea behind patents is the push innovation and inventions. Today, patents seem to have the opposite effect in many industries.
 
GORANKAR said:
Did anyone read the particulars? They are not trying to patent any of your complete genomes. (Where some of you get the idea that you are genetically desirable enough to patent is beyond me.) They are trying to patent results of their cancer research. Yes, gene patents are certain to be a very tricky issue, but if they can't patent them in a way that allows them a ROI, private industry is not going to do this research. And government funded research is not even a drop in the bucket compared to what big pharma spends. If you can do without the benefits of big pharma spending billions a year to research this stuff, then by all means root for the scotus to put the axe to gene patents and research.

We need a clear, well defined, decision that lies somewhere in the middle on this.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised what you can find inside a human being's body. Look up the cell they call HeLa. It's a cancer cell extracted from a woman's body that replicates itself and never dies. It's been exploited for decades and none of the billions of dollars made from it ever made it back to the woman it came from, or her family.
 
ballistic90 said:
You'd be surprised what you can find inside a human being's body. Look up the cell they call HeLa. It's a cancer cell extracted from a woman's body that replicates itself and never dies. It's been exploited for decades and none of the billions of dollars made from it ever made it back to the woman it came from, or her family.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the HeLa cell. It was taken from her body without the consent of her or her family. Patents, in this case, wouldn't have helped her because any patent would have gone to the person who took the cells from her body.
 
Patent an artificial gene manipulation technique, or enhancement? Potentially disastrous in a NWO type of way, but maybe.

Patent the gene itself? Don't see it.
 
GORANKAR said:
Did anyone read the particulars? They are not trying to patent any of your complete genomes. (Where some of you get the idea that you are genetically desirable enough to patent is beyond me.) They are trying to patent results of their cancer research. Yes, gene patents are certain to be a very tricky issue, but if they can't patent them in a way that allows them a ROI, private industry is not going to do this research. And government funded research is not even a drop in the bucket compared to what big pharma spends. If you can do without the benefits of big pharma spending billions a year to research this stuff, then by all means root for the scotus to put the axe to gene patents and research.

We need a clear, well defined, decision that lies somewhere in the middle on this.
Click to expand...

And if we stopped funding wars and had government funding at that level, for the benefit of all Americans in a non-profit fashion instead of for the benefit of the pockets of the few, people would go berserk and call it Socialism. Just like pretty much anything the government attempts to do to actually serve We the People instead of corporate America.

So of course it'll be bad if they don't allow it. Because politicians won't allow government to do it, and will just complain if private enterprise can't profit from it, hence if they don't, it'll be completely blocked from being done.

We're just going to eventually do ourselves in doing it in this fashion in the long run. Patents will always be out of control.
 
damicatz said:
I'm familiar with the HeLa cell. It was taken from her body without the consent of her or her family. Patents, in this case, wouldn't have helped her because any patent would have gone to the person who took the cells from her body.
Click to expand...

...Yeah, and you see how that might be a case AGAINST these kinds of patents?
 
patent the gene: no
patent the method to MAKE IT SYNTACTICALLY: yes
 
UrielDagda said:
And if we stopped funding wars and had government funding at that level, for the benefit of all Americans in a non-profit fashion instead of for the benefit of the pockets of the few, people would go berserk and call it Socialism. Just like pretty much anything the government attempts to do to actually serve We the People instead of corporate America.

So of course it'll be bad if they don't allow it. Because politicians won't allow government to do it, and will just complain if private enterprise can't profit from it, hence if they don't, it'll be completely blocked from being done.

We're just going to eventually do ourselves in doing it in this fashion in the long run. Patents will always be out of control.
Click to expand...

At this point the world hates us. Getting rid of the war machine is no longer possible without it leading to our demise as a country. It is naive to think that, taking away the military spending, would ever, and could ever, lead to the monies currently going to national defense, be redirected into long term medical research. But yeah, corrupt politicians are corrupt. We agree on that.
 
kbrickley said:
I am a little schizophrenic on this one ... I can understand and agree that natural processes shouldn't monopolized by the first to discover them ... however, it does cost a lot of time, money, and resources to map out these genes ... a patent would provide companies some protection of their investment in this ...
Click to expand...
That's a ridiculous argument. The amount of resources required to do something is not the basis of a patent - whether those resources produce a unique, intellectual property is the purpose of a patent. Genes already exist and hence should not be patented.

As someone who works for a small company that develops genetic tests, I see the problem with this every day. We are restricted from branching out and better competing with larger companies that have patented every gene under the sun. These genes have been in existence in you and I for potentially millions of years, yet somehow these companies are granted the right to own them? I am sorry, but that makes no sense.
 
damicatz said:
Patents are all bullshit monopolistic privileges granted by the state and their cronies. There is not one shred of *credible* evidence that patents promote innovation (and I challenge the statist apologists to prove me otherwise).

Gene patents are the worst of all because, in effect, gene patents are about legalizing slavery. In effect, the state is saying that a person does not have the right to access the contents of their own body; that, part of their own body is, in effect, owned by a corporation. However much the research may or may not have cost is irrelevant; a trillion dollars of research does not justify giving someone ownership of everyone's bodies.

This is such a dangerous precedent that, regardless of what the Supreme Clown Court says, people have a moral imperative to ignore it and to resist it using whatever force is necessary for self-defense.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you read Next. ;)
 
GORANKAR said:
And government funded research is not even a drop in the bucket compared to what big pharma spends. If you can do without the benefits of big pharma spending billions a year to research this stuff, then by all means root for the scotus to put the axe to gene patents and research.
Click to expand...
Actually, direct government grants account for right around a third of all funding. Most of the research is conducted in public labs in public universities by faculty and graduate student...paid salaries from public money. And the "private" funding that is spent can be deducted from taxes and a substantial amount comes from block grants--once again deriving from public sources rather than private.

Patenting entitles private corporations to lucrative profits while the public funds the R&D, the public assumes the risk of investment, and ultimately the majority of whom are unable to benefit from the medical advancements.
 
As a medical professional (in training, MD) I can authoritatively say that ZERO good comes of patentable genes and/or genetic therapy. This is one of those times when the public good needs to come before profit; no ifs, ands, or buts. It is horrible enough that drugs and procedures are patentable (a system I feel needs to be reversed immediately, to be replaced with a "bounty/reward" system instead ), but to allow that same greed to apply to our knowledge about the very building blocks of life and how we interact with them is preposterous.

Make no mistake, America's health care system is one of the most bloated and expensive in the developed world with some of the worst outcomes and largest gaps between the "haves and have nots", mostly because of the amount of corporate fucking around that is allowed to continue, especially by insurance company leeches, disastrous big pharma and medical device manufacturers, and the whole cottage industry that is built to entwine health in corporate bureaucracy - these elements affect both doctors and patients equally deleteriously.

This needs to end to provide better care to the American public. We absolutely need a single payer, public owned not-for-profit system of paying for medical care, to eliminate patents on healthcare-related methodologies and generally put our collective foot down to demand that all those who make profit from control of or attempt to deny others the very best quality health care possible will not be tolerated. Amazingly, limiting the ability of certain private interests to dictate the costs of health care and rejecting middlemen who leech money that should be paying for it, will mean that we'll not only have better care, but it will cost less as well! Healthcare doesn't need to be the quagmire that is the leading cause of bankruptcy nor do we need to have a system where only a relatively small percentage have access to the best treatment - and it will actually save us money to make the change!

I can go into more depth in a plethora of interconnected areas, but suffice it to say this issue of gene-related patents shouldn't even be up for discussion in an ethical society. We not only need to reject patents on discovery and manipulation of the genome, but also need to institute copious protections to prevent legal genetic discrimination.
 
niconx said:
Some people believe that without the exclusive right to price gouge people it would be impossible to fund research into working with genes. I still want to know why some medications cost hundreds of dollars a bottle yet they have been manufactured for decades. If only these companies knew how to reduce costs of manufacturing like the semiconductor industry. I'm just talking out of my ass here but I doubt they put forth any effort to reduce costs of manufacturing. Who wants to make 50% profit on $10 when you can make 50% profit on $400?
Click to expand...

Drugs cost almost nothing to manufacture. Drug research costs themselves are artificially inflated; a significant amount of drug research is actually done with taxpayer grants at universities and that which isn't is still heavily subsidized and subject to numerous tax breaks.

Most of the actual "cost" comes from onerous FDA regulations, regulations which big pharama routinely lobby for in order to regulate their smaller competitors to death. Eliminate the FDA and you eliminate a significant portion of the "real" cost.

GORANKAR said:
Did anyone read the particulars? They are not trying to patent any of your complete genomes. (Where some of you get the idea that you are genetically desirable enough to patent is beyond me.) They are trying to patent results of their cancer research. Yes, gene patents are certain to be a very tricky issue, but if they can't patent them in a way that allows them a ROI, private industry is not going to do this research. And government funded research is not even a drop in the bucket compared to what big pharma spends. If you can do without the benefits of big pharma spending billions a year to research this stuff, then by all means root for the scotus to put the axe to gene patents and research.

We need a clear, well defined, decision that lies somewhere in the middle on this.
Click to expand...

This is sophistry. If there is only one way to access a gene, and that way is patented, then that gene, by effect, is also patented and restricted. Or, in other words, if there is a room with only one door, he who controls the door controls the contents of the room.

Things like profit and ROI are flawed utilitarian arguments. You are attempting to justify an inherently unethical action (denying someone access to their own body) by claiming that the ends justify the means; that, regardless of the morality of the action, it is justified because it, in your opinion, produces good results. This is a dangerous line of thinking that can be extended to justify any sort of atrocious action on the basis that the results are good.
 
damicatz said:
Patents are all bullshit monopolistic privileges granted by the state and their cronies. There is not one shred of *credible* evidence that patents promote innovation (and I challenge the statist apologists to prove me otherwise).
Click to expand...
That is far too extreme a viewpoint.

It is common sense that patents increase the return on invesmtnet for research, and that without patents or patent enforcement, there is less incentive to be a front runner since your competitors can simply immediately reverse-engineer your product and produce an exact clone at a lower price point since they didn't have R&D and other market research costs.

HOWEVER, our patent system is most absolutely broken, in that the patents are far too broad and easily granted in cases where they should not. Apple's patent on a rectangular phone with a touchscreen and rounded corners is assinine for example.

I also believe it is stupid to allow genes to be patented, as we have already seen the problems that has caused with GMO crops. A simple law needs to be made that says you cannot patent life.

Plain and simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top