Discuss.
Poll
Is it right?
| Yes | 22% | 22% - 8 | ||||
| No | 77% | 77% - 27 | ||||
| Total: 35 | ||||||
You could make a killing if you had spartan genetics, patented them and then sold them at a premium.
Maybe. If it makes corporations greedy enough to horde a cure then no. If it gives one scientist credit for his work then yes.
Not these modern day spartans, They fat and lazy and nothing like they were back then. But if manage to find king leonidus's DNA well then thats a whole different story.HurricaИe wrote:
You could make a killing if you had spartan genetics, patented them and then sold them at a premium.
Last edited by David.P (2008-01-18 15:32:31)
I do not support gene patenting, you just can't patent some as complex and natural as genes. That's like me trying to patent sex, circulatory systems or air.
And you can't patent facts of nature. It's similar to patenting an element, that's been here for millions of years. Genes were not man-made.
Here's a link.
Here's a link.
Last edited by PspRpg-7 (2008-01-18 15:47:36)
I'll put it this way... I'd like to see them try to enforce a gene patent....
You can't patent genetics. Simple.
no kidding, that has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of.Turquoise wrote:
I'll put it this way... I'd like to see them try to enforce a gene patent....
That's just fucked up... although... you know what this means...
Countries like Singapore have made a lot of headway in biotechnology and genetics research. I don't see them or many other countries really paying any mind to these patents, mostly because they don't have to.
I just hope patent law never becomes powerful enough for true international enforcement of things like this. Besides, even if it did come to that, they'd have one hell of a black market to combat throughout the entire world.
Countries like Singapore have made a lot of headway in biotechnology and genetics research. I don't see them or many other countries really paying any mind to these patents, mostly because they don't have to.
I just hope patent law never becomes powerful enough for true international enforcement of things like this. Besides, even if it did come to that, they'd have one hell of a black market to combat throughout the entire world.
Two Words: Prior Art
That's strikingly similar to a case the Supreme Court agreed to hear two terms ago (Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc.). In it, Metabolite sued LabCorp because it infringed on a patent held by Metabolite that included as a step in the patented process the realization that a certain vitamin deficiency was related to a certain chemical level in the blood. As such, Metabolite claimed that anytime a doctor or laboratory correlated these two factors, using any method at all, they were infringing on Metabolite's patent.PspRpg-7 wrote:
Like this?
For whatever reason, the Court declined to hear the case, dismissing the writ they themselves issued as improvidently granted. Justices Breyer, Stevens, and Souter joined in a dissent from dismissal, and I think it's about the only time I've ever agreed with them without Scalia or Thomas joining their opinion. Unfortunately, the lower court decided in favor of Metabolite. So now it's possible to violate a patent just by thinking about something. I don't hold out high hopes for this case, either.
edit: I usually don't follow corporate lawsuits when perusing Supreme Court opinions, but I was alerted to this one by an editorial in the New York Times by Michael Crichton (yes, that Michael Crichton, of Jurassic Park fame). I wouldn't even have read that editorial but for it's title: This Essay Breaks the Law.
Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2008-01-18 19:40:02)
Tell you the truth, I started thinking about this when I read the book "Next" by Micheal Crichton.HollisHurlbut wrote:
That's strikingly similar to a case the Supreme Court agreed to hear two terms ago (Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc.). In it, Metabolite sued LabCorp because it infringed on a patent held by Metabolite that included as a step in the patented process the realization that a certain vitamin deficiency was related to a certain chemical level in the blood. As such, Metabolite claimed that anytime a doctor or laboratory correlated these two factors, using any method at all, they were infringing on Metabolite's patent.PspRpg-7 wrote:
Like this?
For whatever reason, the Court declined to hear the case, dismissing the writ they themselves issued as improvidently granted. Justices Breyer, Stevens, and Souter joined in a dissent from dismissal, and I think it's about the only time I've ever agreed with them without Scalia or Thomas joining their opinion. Unfortunately, the lower court decided in favor of Metabolite. So now it's possible to violate a patent just by thinking about something. I don't hold out high hopes for this case, either.
edit: I usually don't follow corporate lawsuits when perusing Supreme Court opinions, but I was alerted to this one by an editorial in the New York Times by Michael Crichton (yes, that Michael Crichton, of Jurassic Park fame). I wouldn't even have read that editorial but for it's title: This Essay Breaks the Law.
to make it short they already have patented half of the human gene code and all of the rats.Turquoise wrote:
I'll put it this way... I'd like to see them try to enforce a gene patent....
very sad but very true.
That's the next book on my list. I heard it was good.PspRpg-7 wrote:
Tell you the truth, I started thinking about this when I read the book "Next" by Micheal Crichton.
I knew it as soon as I read the topic! I just finished it a few days ago. It wasn't one of his better ones, he has a tendency to let the "ZOMG, <insert threat here> iz g0ing 2B the downfall of mankind!!11!1!" take over the story sometimes. But if half the things he mentions in there become true, things are going to get fucked up here soon.PspRpg-7 wrote:
Tell you the truth, I started thinking about this when I read the book "Next" by Micheal Crichton.
I recommend it.SenorToenails wrote:
That's the next book on my list. I heard it was good.PspRpg-7 wrote:
Tell you the truth, I started thinking about this when I read the book "Next" by Micheal Crichton.
The book didn't really have a climax, or one that I noticed. I enjoyed it though. Good read.chittydog wrote:
I knew it as soon as I read the topic! I just finished it a few days ago. It wasn't one of his better ones, he has a tendency to let the "ZOMG, <insert threat here> iz g0ing 2B the downfall of mankind!!11!1!" take over the story sometimes. But if half the things he mentions in there become true, things are going to get fucked up here soon.PspRpg-7 wrote:
Tell you the truth, I started thinking about this when I read the book "Next" by Micheal Crichton.
And the whole "the worlds gonna be fux'd!" thing of his books, I thought the same thing after "Rising Sun".
Last edited by PspRpg-7 (2008-01-18 20:14:19)
Took the words right outta my mouth. That was the last one I read before Next. He did something similar with Prey, but managed to keep the story interesting on its own. Anyway, enough sidetracking...PspRpg-7 wrote:
I recommend it.SenorToenails wrote:
That's the next book on my list. I heard it was good.PspRpg-7 wrote:
Tell you the truth, I started thinking about this when I read the book "Next" by Micheal Crichton.The book didn't really have a climax, or one that I noticed. I enjoyed it though. Good read.chittydog wrote:
I knew it as soon as I read the topic! I just finished it a few days ago. It wasn't one of his better ones, he has a tendency to let the "ZOMG, <insert threat here> iz g0ing 2B the downfall of mankind!!11!1!" take over the story sometimes. But if half the things he mentions in there become true, things are going to get fucked up here soon.PspRpg-7 wrote:
Tell you the truth, I started thinking about this when I read the book "Next" by Micheal Crichton.
And the whole "the worlds gonna be fux'd!" thing of his books, I thought the same thing after "Rising Sun".
Definately is.
If corporations can't patent them, they will not research them either.
There is no 'for the greater good' in financial world.
If corporations can't patent them, they will not research them either.
There is no 'for the greater good' in financial world.
And what does academia exist for?Gawwad wrote:
Definately is.
If corporations can't patent them, they will not research them either.
There is no 'for the greater good' in financial world.
This isn't about academia. We may patent the process to discover genes or use gene therapy to help others, but to actually patent genetic codes themselves is ridiculous. What a good portion of the genetic industry seems to be doing is trying to put a stranglehold on various treatments in the pursuit of profit.SenorToenails wrote:
And what does academia exist for?Gawwad wrote:
Definately is.
If corporations can't patent them, they will not research them either.
There is no 'for the greater good' in financial world.
So no... this isn't academia, it's murderous greed.
Nono, I think I didn't explain myself enough. He said that corporations wouldn't research things unless they could make money off of it. That's what academia is for. Research for the sake of research (many times, at least).Turquoise wrote:
This isn't about academia. We may patent the process to discover genes or use gene therapy to help others, but to actually patent genetic codes themselves is ridiculous. What a good portion of the genetic industry seems to be doing is trying to put a stranglehold on various treatments in the pursuit of profit.SenorToenails wrote:
And what does academia exist for?Gawwad wrote:
Definately is.
If corporations can't patent them, they will not research them either.
There is no 'for the greater good' in financial world.
So no... this isn't academia, it's murderous greed.
I agree with you, and I find it absurd that portions of genetic code can be patented. I'm pretty sure nature is full of prior art for genes.
Turquoise got a good point IMO. We cant patent genetic code that you didn't invent yourself on the basis that "you found it first". It would be like patenting the pancreas just because you found it first...
However if you modify the genes then it definitely should be allowed, just like a modified pancreas can be patented. Methods of obtaining these changes should also be patentable.
Here in Sweden the academia plays a huge part in the "basic" science. Finding out how things works by doing loads of repetitive experiments that no company would want to do because the outcome is often just "knowledge" and if you cannot make a useful application of this knowledge then its useless to a company. This knowledge is very important since the really big breakthroughs comes from one person outside reading about different types of science that at the first glance has no connection at all but this person/persons find it. Without the basic knowledge these connections would never been possible.
However if you modify the genes then it definitely should be allowed, just like a modified pancreas can be patented. Methods of obtaining these changes should also be patentable.
Here in Sweden the academia plays a huge part in the "basic" science. Finding out how things works by doing loads of repetitive experiments that no company would want to do because the outcome is often just "knowledge" and if you cannot make a useful application of this knowledge then its useless to a company. This knowledge is very important since the really big breakthroughs comes from one person outside reading about different types of science that at the first glance has no connection at all but this person/persons find it. Without the basic knowledge these connections would never been possible.
True, but read my post for my take on it. Essentially, the government must be there to keep the market open for things like research. Patents shouldn't trump discovery or saving people's lives.Gawwad wrote:
Definately is.
If corporations can't patent them, they will not research them either.
There is no 'for the greater good' in financial world.
BTW, sorry for the mixup SenorToenails.
EDIT: also... Good points, Raga. That's the way things ought to work here, but it would seem greed has taken a higher priority over some of the process.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-01-19 16:43:14)