Thread: Ebola in Texas

Originally Posted by whiteflags

A snope that says that genes can't be patented now, but it used to be possible, isn't shameful.

Just out of curiosity, what could someone even do with a patent on a gene?

The only thing I can think of is something like insulin production, where they use bacteria to produce insulin by changing it's DNA (think that's right). So you could possibly prevent someone from using that genetic code with a patent.

Seems like everything can be considered intellectual property these days, but I just can't think of much else you could do with a patent on genes...

Seems like everything can be considered intellectual property these days, but I just can't think of much else you could do with a patent on genes...

O_o

I could, will not, post a few patents on genes concerning the treatment of a few rare diseases.

Full Disclosure: the one patent I'm about to reference, I believe, had expired even before the referenced court held similar patents invalid.

One patent derived from the isolation of particular human gene was, for a time, the best most definitive test for commonality of a particular kind (I recall being breast cancer, but I am typing this in a hurry.) of cancer.

In other words, a patent on that particular gene allowed the owner of the patent to force all testing for serious medical issue be done through them or others licensing the patent.

Medical patents, like all patents, have a crucial value. (Without some guarantee of income, a lot this research would never have been done in the first place leading to a situation with only far less sophisticated tests.) However, the way patents are enforced in the United States results in a situation where competing companies often refuse to expend resources on alternatives which may have been better. A natural aspect of building alternatives in this particular case would have required those competing companies to isolate the same gene for comparison and production which, obviously, the patent owner would try to use as ammunition for demanding licensing or cross-licensing the alternative even though it may not have been a true derivative.

So yeah, patents on natural phenomena are bad.

Soma

Originally Posted by phantomotap

A natural aspect of building alternatives in this particular case would have required those competing companies to isolate the same gene for comparison and production which, obviously, the patent owner would try to use as ammunition for demanding licensing or cross-licensing the alternative even though it may not have been a true derivative.

I think I see. It's not so much the actual sequence of information in the gene, but the way it is isolated and/or used to do things that was claimed. It seems like a horrible idea to mix intellectual property ideas with medicine in any case. I know that creators need a way to monetize their creations, but the consequences of doing that in medicine are pretty ridiculous sometimes.

Originally Posted by phantomotap;

So yeah, patents on natural phenomena are bad.

Just imagine the money I will make when I patent math and logic though...