

The continuing saga of the gene patenting case - grellas
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/nature-vs-nuture-the-continuing-saga-of-the-gene-patenting-case/73359/

======
rosenjon
Awesome article! Thank you for posting this. I just recently started really
looking at Hacker News (mostly because of my Y Combinator application), but I
have been really impressed with the breadth of stuff posted here.

I am a molecular biology major and used to do lab research in this area, so I
find it fascinating.

I will say that the U.S. Patent Office really needs a refresh in terms of who
it hires. Both in terms of software patents and molecular biology, it is
pretty clear that the people issuing these patents don't understand the core
issues.

The isolation of a DNA sequence should not be patentable, any more than
reading data off a disk drive is patentable. Both these technologies relied on
years of publicly funded scientific research and a myriad of different
technologies. This company has merely built on those findings.

If they have discovered a novel way to analyze the results of a specific
sequence, and determined a provable correlation between a specific sequence
variant and getting breast cancer, then perhaps this is an invention that
deserves patent protection in the form of a commercializable product. In no
way should this restrict further research in the area, however. The entire
point of the patent system is to trade disclosure for protection. These guys
seem like they want to prevent anyone else from researching these genes
entirely, which in my mind is just plain selfish and goes against the spirit
of the patent system.

I agree that there needs to be some benefits to companies that produce novel
discoveries in the area of information technology (which is really what we are
talking about regarding molecular biology and software patents). Patenting
genes is not the way. Patenting software algorithms is not the way.

Bottom line: Our legislators need to get off their asses and adapt our laws
for the 21st Century. Or we need to find new legislators who will.

------
iwwr
The only solid position against patents is the principled one. It would be a
shame if biotech were hobbled for decades to come.

For those interested, a must-read resource:
[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm)

~~~
rosenjon
I think the question is: What is the principled stance?

The link you referenced would generally be considered the far-left stance, in
that there really shouldn't be any property ownership at all (the referenced
writings seem to suggest that even real property is a menace).

Personally, I think there should be some reward for truly novel invention. I
agree with the referenced writings that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich
does not qualify for such protection, despite what the Patent Office may do.
This is simply an indication of the level of work being done at the Patent
Office, however, amongst other structural problems in the system.

I do think that the patent system serves a purpose. For invention that is
truly novel, it is worth the price of temporary monopoly to encourage
disclosure. Many of the novel drugs on the market today might not exist
without patent protection. It is simply too expensive to create a new drug
without the promise of a future upside free from the inevitable copycats, who
could underprice because they have no R&D expense. While drug companies are
not usually considered the good guy due to over-pricing (because of patent
monopolies), I think we are better off having the drugs in the long term and
suffering the short term consequences of issuing the patent.

~~~
iwwr
There is a very clear distinction between IP and 'physical (real?) property',
we can at least agree on that, can we? There is a great drive to define IP in
the same vein as physical property, in order to derive the same kinds of
protections. But they are fundamentally different and so IP belongs in a
category of its own.

The problem with monopoly for inventions is that people can come up with the
same ideas independently and some developments are merely logical engineering
solutions to a given problem (other engineers may solve it the same way and
independently).

As for drugs, the real costs come from the regulatory procedures and less from
the R&D itself. And even then, why should a company be granted a monopoly for
simply following a logical series of steps (which any other company could do)?
There is no clear idea what 'truly novel' means and how it's distinguished
from an 'engineering solution' as defined above.

~~~
rosenjon
I agree that IP belongs in a category of its own. Real property ownership
lasts effectively forever. Intellectual property, in the form of patents, are
temporary monopolies under the current system. So there are already
distinctions.

It is indeed difficult to decide what is truly "innovative" or "new". The
patent system defines the criteria for issuing a patent as novel, non-obvious,
and useful. These are very broad standards, and were much more applicable to
physical invention than information technology invention.

In my opinion, the patent system needs an update for the 21st Century. Those
involved in developing software and information based technologies need to
collaborate on a set of rules that set a high bar for issuing a patent, and a
set of guidelines that streamline the application process for the U.S. Patent
Office. The issues involved are usually highly technical, and rather than have
a bunch of software engineer working in the patent office, it would make sense
to force the applicant to prove via the application process that the product
deserves protection.

Personally, I think that pure software should be copyrighted, not patented. If
there are hardware and software components, that is the only time that a
patent should be considered. Ditto with genetics. You should not be able to
patent the information for a gene. It may be reasonable to patent the tools
used to discover genes, assuming they are not straight derivatives of
naturally occurring enzymes.

------
jcr
grellas, many thanks for the submitted article. It's good to know about the
case, but I have to admit that reading about patents on genes, living
organisms and medical treatments is disturbing. We need a better system; one
that rewards research and innovation with incentives but without granting the
disincentive of monopoly.

~~~
iwwr
There is one system and it's called 'the market'.

