2/15/2007

6 Responses to “Tyranny of Patent Law – Part II”

1. I read NEXT his latest book on a plane the other day, not his best work, but the underlying case against the patenting of genes is highly persuasive. The worst case scenarios played out in the book illustrate the bizzare course of events that have led up to this point, and the exposure of colleges and their research arms in this fiasco is well illustrated.

   Gabriel (585e7f) — 2/15/2007 @ 5:07 am

   
   

2. If someone owns the disease that is killing me, why can’t I sue him? When I die, shouldn’t he go on trial for manslaughter?

   CAL

   CAL (0a6e44) — 2/15/2007 @ 10:02 am

   
   

3. Excellent point CAL. Wish I had thought of that one myself.

   Justin Levine (b1cc1f) — 2/15/2007 @ 10:50 am

   
   

4. CAL, that is perhaps the funniest thing I have heard in quite awhile. I and my fellow engineers were discussing this very subject today at lunch, but we spent all of our time merely exploring the distortions of the notion of “patent” that this represents.

   I very much like the idea of using the Black Art of the Law against weasels such as these gene “inventors”. The mind reels at the possibilities…

   Incidentally – I am not religious, but as a question to those who are: aren’t you offended even a little bit by the hubris of these jokers claiming to have “invented” (a form of) life? I would think there would be a prior-art issue, at least.

   JSinAZ (5c230e) — 2/15/2007 @ 7:02 pm

   
   

5. Having been involved with a bit of patent law as an expert wtiness, I can say that not patent is worth any more than the last court decision.

   I have always viewed patents as driving your stake into the ground, but of course anybody who would try this in Manhattan knows that is a useless gesture once you get to court.

   These gene patents just haven’t been properly contested. Anyone who has one of these genes, could claim “prior art” (i.e. it’s been done before).

   Neo (cba5df) — 2/15/2007 @ 7:31 pm

   
   

6. Utter nonsense, this is a dead issue. There are no patents on ordinary genes in nature, there are no patents on pathogens, there is not a single example in history of a gene patent precluding the availability of diagnostic or treatment options. Most gene patents recite a specific polynucleotide sequence on a nucleotide-by-nucleotide basis and so are readily avoided. Note that Crighton never says that a product or diagnostic are unavailable, just that a royalty might be demanded. Even where needed, licenses ARE readily available, it’s found money, why wouldn’t they be?
   Lastly, there is, of course, no threat to research because research activities are exempt from infringment when directed to submission of information to the FDA and are otherwise so de minimus that suits are never brought. What’s the real complaint of this article? There is no test, then somebody discovers it, and wants to be paid for the trouble. Crighton’s Solution, just return to the situation where there is no test. PSA is or was patented, anybody have trouble getting a PSA test recently?
   There are real issues preventing real diagnostics and real cures. Let’s focus on real issues.

   Clarity (57de1b) — 2/17/2007 @ 9:30 pm