or

You decide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Quote :

"This Essay Breaks the Law The Earth revolves around the Sun. • The speed of light is a constant. • Apples fall to earth because of gravity. • Elevated blood sugar is linked to diabetes. • Elevated uric acid is linked to gout. • Elevated homocysteine is linked to heart disease. • Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins. ACTUALLY, I can't make that last statement. A corporation has patented that fact, and demands a royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the fact public and encourages doctors to test for the condition and treat it can be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient's test results and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A federal circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent. All this may sound absurd, but it is the heart of a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In 1986 researchers filed a patent application for a method of testing the levels of homocysteine, an amino acid, in the blood. They went one step further and asked for a patent on the basic biological relationship between homocysteine and vitamin deficiency. A patent was granted that covered both the test and the scientific fact. Eventually, a company called Metabolite took over the license for the patent. Although Metabolite does not have a monopoly on test methods — other companies make homocysteine tests, too — they assert licensing rights on the correlation of elevated homocysteine with vitamin deficiency. A company called LabCorp used a different test but published an article mentioning the patented fact. Metabolite sued on a number of grounds, and has won in court so far. But what the Supreme Court will focus on is the nature of the claimed correlation. On the one hand, courts have repeatedly held that basic bodily processes and "products of nature" are not patentable. That's why no one owns gravity, or the speed of light. But at the same time, courts have granted so-called correlation patents for many years. Powerful forces are arrayed on both sides of the issue. In addition, there is the rather bizarre question of whether simply thinking about a patented fact infringes the patent. The idea smacks of thought control, to say nothing of unenforceability. It seems like something out of a novel by Philip K. Dick — or Kafka. But it highlights the uncomfortable truth that the Patent Office and the courts have in recent decades ruled themselves into a corner from which they must somehow extricate themselves. For example, the human genome exists in every one of us, and is therefore our shared heritage and an undoubted fact of nature. Nevertheless 20 percent of the genome is now privately owned. The gene for diabetes is owned, and its owner has something to say about any research you do, and what it will cost you. The entire genome of the hepatitis C virus is owned by a biotech company. Royalty costs now influence the direction of research in basic diseases, and often even the testing for diseases. Such barriers to medical testing and research are not in the public interest. Do you want to be told by your doctor, "Oh, nobody studies your disease any more because the owner of the gene/enzyme/correlation has made it too expensive to do research?" The question of whether basic truths of nature can be owned ought not to be confused with concerns about how we pay for biotech development, whether we will have drugs in the future, and so on. If you invent a new test, you may patent it and sell it for as much as you can, if that's your goal. Companies can certainly own a test they have invented. But they should not own the disease itself, or the gene that causes the disease, or essential underlying facts about the disease. The distinction is not difficult, even though patent lawyers attempt to blur it. And even if correlation patents have been granted, the overwhelming majority of medical correlations, including those listed above, are not owned. And shouldn't be. Unfortunately for the public, the Metabolite case is only one example of a much broader patent problem in this country. We grant patents at a level of abstraction that is unwise, and it's gotten us into trouble in the past. Some years back, doctors were allowed to patent surgical procedures and sue other doctors who used their methods without paying a fee. A blizzard of lawsuits followed. This unhealthy circumstance was halted in 1996 by the American Medical Association and Congress, which decided that doctors couldn't sue other doctors for using patented surgical procedures. But the beat goes on. Companies have patented their method of hiring, and real estate agents have patented the way they sell houses. Lawyers now advise athletes to patent their sports moves, and screenwriters to patent their movie plots. (My screenplay for "Jurassic Park" was cited as a good candidate.) Where does all this lead? It means that if a real estate agent lists a house for sale, he can be sued because an existing patent for selling houses includes item No. 7, "List the house." It means that Kobe Bryant may serve as an inspiration but not a model, because nobody can imitate him without fines. It means nobody can write a dinosaur story because my patent includes 257 items covering all aspects of behavior, like item No. 13, "Dinosaurs attack humans and other dinosaurs." Such a situation is idiotic, of course. Yet elements of it already exist. And unless we begin to turn this around, there will be worse to come. I wanted to end this essay by telling a story about how current rulings hurt us, but the patent for "ending an essay with an anecdote" is owned. So I thought to end with a quotation from a famous person, but that strategy is patented, too. I then decided to end abruptly, but "abrupt ending for dramatic effect" is also patented. Finally, I decided to pay the "end with summary" patent fee, since it was the least expensive. The Supreme Court should rule against Metabolite, and the Patent Office should begin to reverse its strategy of patenting strategies. Basic truths of nature can't be owned. Oh, and by the way: I own the patent for "essay or letter criticizing a previous publication." So anyone who criticizes what I have said here had better pay a royalty first, or I'll see you in court."

Perhaps we're not far from having to pay TGD royalties for using the three dashes for separating portions of our posts after all.

[Edited on March 20, 2006 at 8:41 PM. Reason : ... © Gamecat, 2006]

3/20/2006 8:41:23 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: Perhaps we're not far from having to pay TGD royalties for using the three dashes for separating portions of our posts after all."

You left out the "putting the user's name before their comment" thing too

as for the topic, I really hate teh g0v's current patent system...

3/20/2006 8:48:08 PM

Is there any way out of it? Or to change it?

I mean, it's not like the sky is falling or anything (re: unenforceable), but this is flatly rediculous. I don't understand why we allow patents of facts.

[Edited on March 20, 2006 at 8:54 PM. Reason : ...]

3/20/2006 8:54:28 PM

patents: the new slavery

Before the information age, they actually served a good purpose.
Now, they are the most evil things in the world.
Patents are fucking wrong. Period.

They keep the rich rich, and keep the poor from being rewarded for their creativity—what patents were originally intentioned to do.

It is an attack on nature and autonomous thought.

One of the most glaring proofs of this is the fact that unlike copyright, the original author/creator of a patentable process doesn't automatically get the patent upon the authoring/creation. IOW, someone can use their own intellectual effort to create a process, be the sole entity that performs the process, but then, years later, someone with shit tons of money can come in, copy what they are doing exactly, "buy" the patent, and force the original author/creator to cease and desist.

Also, more and more natural substances are being given patents.
Sativex.....
Red Rice Yeast....

This will be the biggest issue in the 21st century, and with any luck, I personally will murder everyone who supports this bullshit.

Quote :

"We grant patents at a level of abstraction that is unwise"

Understatement of the centruy.

3/20/2006 9:07:47 PM

By MICHAEL CRICHTON

Quote :

"A federal circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent. "

they ruled that USE of the knowledge of that correlation is patented....



but this was funny

Quote :

"Oh, and by the way: I own the patent for "essay or letter criticizing a previous publication." So anyone who criticizes what I have said here had better pay a royalty first, or I'll see you in court."

[Edited on March 20, 2006 at 9:26 PM. Reason : -]

3/20/2006 9:09:36 PM

http://tinyurl.com/z38dq

Required reading for this thread.

The Economist frequently has pretty good articles on patents.

3/20/2006 9:58:06 PM

A fascinating case.
I would find it troubling if the Supremes found it OK to patent a "basic biological relationship." There are still many mysteries of life out there waiting for us. But shedding the light of discovery on a mystery does not necessarily mean you get to own its answer. If you invent something that puts that answer to work, now that's a different story.

3/20/2006 11:33:25 PM

why the fuck not, you can already patent a plant that you had no part in selectively breeding for thousands of years, they may as well patent thinking, too

3/21/2006 1:35:56 PM

^has that actually happened with anything except the enola bean? that's the only one i can think of and i'm pretty sure it's getting tossed out but they're just dragging ass doing it.

3/21/2006 4:30:04 PM

if you construct a new genome for a plant, then you ought to be able to patent it.

as long as you're constructing something, patents are great. the problem is when you patent methodologies.

but i'm not saying its wrong to patent methodologies - I can easily see a compelling reason why you should be allowed to do so.

3/21/2006 4:36:46 PM

Quote :

"you can already patent a plant that you had no part in selectively breeding for thousands of years"

I know, that shit is so obviously wrong.....

[Edited on March 21, 2006 at 5:19 PM. Reason : do you know the deal with Red Rice Yeast? ]

3/21/2006 5:19:13 PM

^eh, wasn't that where a drug company tried to sue dietary supplement companies or something? i couldn't find anything on google except "omg lower your cholesterol naturally!" sites

i wouldn't really consider that patenting a plant, which is what i was asking about (as in the companies will sue you if you grow the plant). i've heard people mention it pretty often but that enola case is the only one i can think of in which a company actually patented a pre-existing plant variety.

[Edited on March 21, 2006 at 5:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2006 5:35:38 PM

3/21/2006 6:26:50 PM

Well fuck

I'd better start cashing in on my patent on Modus Ponens

I was wondering when this thing would come in handy*





* try to argue with me and I'll sue you for royalties, bitch

3/21/2006 6:30:14 PM

Quote :

"if you construct a new genome for a plant, then you ought to be able to patent it."

HEY CAREFUL THERE BUDDY. COME TO ANY VALID INTERPRETATION OF THAT STATEMENT AND YOU'LL BE SEEING MY LAWYER.

3/21/2006 6:34:08 PM

Quote :

"eh, wasn't that where a drug company tried to sue dietary supplement companies or something?"

Yeah, Red Rice Yeast is a popular Asian dietary supplement that has been used for, like, ever..... It was recently discovered that the way it works is because it either contains or breaks down into a particular chemical that is responsible for the effects. It just so happens that that patent for that chemical is held by some company. The company is trying, (perhaps successfully ), to force producers and retailers of the Red Rice Yeast supplement to cease and desist, even though the Red Rice Yeast and the chemical in question "came first". It is a really disturbing precedent.......

[Edited on March 21, 2006 at 6:49 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2006 6:49:18 PM

i think some people in this thread hold a patent on getting pwnt

3/21/2006 7:02:31 PM

Quote :

" Greenpeace is challenging patent rights to a wheat strain granted to Monsanto, the world's largest genetically modified (GM) seed company, on grounds of “biopiracy.” The dispute continues the environmental group's demands against patenting of any plants, animals, humans, and genes. Greenpeace says the patented variety of wheat possesses genetic characteristics originally derived from a strain known as Nap Hal used to make chapatis, the flat bread traditional to northern India. “Monsanto is trying to get ownership of the specific genetic traits of Nap Hal,” Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaigner Christoph Then told The Scientist. “It's robbery of generations of effort in cultivation of Indian farmers.” "

http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2004/february/7675.htm

Quote :

"ETC Group's first Communique of 2005 focuses on Syngenta, the global gene giant that ranks first in agrochemicals and third in seeds. Syngenta has a patent pending in 115 countries that, if approved, would give it a multi-genome monopoly over at least 40 plant species."

http://www.organicconsumers.org/patent/syngenta011105.cfm

that's jsut a few

3/21/2006 8:36:35 PM

Quote :

" Thinking Violates Patent Law "

Thankfully, 95% of the Soap Box posters have absolutely nothing to worry about.

3/21/2006 8:38:27 PM

gg

3/21/2006 9:14:00 PM

Quote :

"“Indian users can use Nap Hal for chapatis or whatever else, now and just as they've always been used to,” McDermott told The Scientist. “The idea that Indian farmers would have to pay royalties to use Nap Hal, that's just inflammatory and ridiculous.”"

it seems like the one they patented is at least slightly different (probably just true-breeding or something).

3/21/2006 9:20:28 PM

I dunno how I really feel about it. I mean, if it was a buttload of money and time going into research that important fact, then they should by all means be entitled to royalties in its use. The same way a chair design is patented and royalties are given. In this case, however, the idea itself is the expression of the design and so may be entitled to protection.

3/22/2006 12:11:19 AM

3/22/2006 2:22:34 PM