Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision • Hacker News Board

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#21

Post by JulianMorrison » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:16 AM UTC

Cyph0n wrote: post #18

ekianjo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we could kill patents altogether that would be a much nicer step. Patents are an invention from another Era and make absolutely no sense nowadays, and we see them constantly abused to make our lives worse in the end.

No it wouldn't. Talented people would have little incentive to create something new.

People's incentive to create is the same as it always was: creative people just want to.

What patents were set up to prevent, IIRC, was trade secrets - they were a way to bribe creators to publish their ideas rather than sit on them.

IMO, they were a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Trade secrets would be reinvented. Locking an idea out of the commons for a whole patent term (and longer if they can attach new patents off the side) is a worse outcome.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#22

Post by rrmm » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:17 AM UTC

Cyph0n wrote: post #18

ekianjo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we could kill patents altogether that would be a much nicer step. Patents are an invention from another Era and make absolutely no sense nowadays, and we see them constantly abused to make our lives worse in the end.

No it wouldn't. Talented people would have little incentive to create something new.

If there is any issue, I don't think that is it.

The issue that might arise is that techniques that are invented might never be openly published (since there wouldn't be protection for it).

For stuff that is obvious, it wouldn't matter because it is obvious. The non-obvious stuff--the stuff that actually does deserve a patent--might be lost on occasion.

I'm not a big fan of patents in general though given my experience with them (and certainly not patents on genes, etc).

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#23

Post by JulianMorrison » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:18 AM UTC

kybernetyk wrote: post #12

onewaystreet wrote: post #3

> This is a result that will have major practical consequences, and is likely to save thousands of lives. No, companies will stop doing research now.

>No, companies will stop doing research now. That's what I'm worried about, too. For example C60 [1] is a curious molecule that can't be patented anymore. In a rat study it showed to prolong the rats' lives by over 90% [2] by protecting the rats from cancer. Sadly there won't be any human study anytime soon (if at all) because it's just not financially viable without the possibility of patenting the stuff and extract…

Governments need to directly fully fund studies in promising but unpatentable medicines.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#24

Post by JulianMorrison » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:18 AM UTC

kybernetyk wrote: post #13

298219640 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If companies stop doing research then the research can be done by universities or similar institutes.

Yes, but no university can afford to take the research results, make a cure from it and bring it to market. The regulatory overhead literally devours billions of dollars to get a new medicine approved. And if a company can not expect to have some exclusive rights on that for at least a few years no one is going to spend that money. Competitors could just take your medicine, copy it and sell for lower because they had…

The government can, though. And should.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#25

Post by Cyph0n » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:21 AM UTC

noir_lord wrote: post #20

Cyph0n wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it wouldn't. Talented people would have little incentive to create something new.

Talented people created things for thousands of years before patents.

People have lived thousands of years without refrigeration.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#26

Post by mirimir » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:23 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #16

mirimir wrote: post #10

Now, if we can just agree that natural products and traditional cures can't be patented. India has been fighting hard for that.

If we could kill patents altogether that would be a much nicer step. Patents are an invention from another Era and make absolutely no sense nowadays, and we see them constantly abused to make our lives worse in the end.

I tend to agree with Cyph0n that patents can promote innovation. But "prior art" ought to be defined sanely. If something has been well known in India for thousands of years, how can some multinational patent it? How can some chemical that occurs in nature be patented? And then there's the whole universe of stuff that's different by one atom over there, and so deemed patentable.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#27

Post by Intermernet » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:28 AM UTC

onewaystreet wrote: post #3

> This is a result that will have major practical consequences, and is likely to save thousands of lives. No, companies will stop doing research now.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRCA1

"The first evidence for the existence of such a gene was provided by Mary-Claire King's laboratory at UC Berkeley in 1990. Four years later, after an international race to find it, the gene was cloned in 1994 by scientists at University of Utah, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and Myriad Genetics."

Myriad Genetics are the sole licensee of the patent. They weren't solely responsible for it's discovery, or successful cloning.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myriad_Genetics#BRCA1_co-disco...:

>BRCA1 co-discoverers National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) University of Utah Research Foundation Université Laval/Endo Research – Quebec The Hospital for Sick Children – University of Toronto University of Tokyo Myriad Genetics, Inc.

>BRCA2 co-discoverers University of Utah Research Foundation The Hospital for Sick Children – University of Toronto University of Pennsylvania Myriad Genetics, Inc.

The research was done by many organisations, not just "companies", and was done with no guarantee of profit. There are some researchers who are actually altruistic, and believe in medical progress to save lives.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#28

Post by CamperBob2 » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:29 AM UTC

Cyph0n wrote: post #25

noir_lord wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talented people created things for thousands of years before patents.

People have lived thousands of years without refrigeration.

Refrigeration is an excellent example of something that could have easily been developed and refined without patent protection.

Consumers win when innovators compete with each other. Patents replace market competition with a foot race.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#29

Post by rmc » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:30 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #16

mirimir wrote: post #10

Now, if we can just agree that natural products and traditional cures can't be patented. India has been fighting hard for that.

If we could kill patents altogether that would be a much nicer step. Patents are an invention from another Era and make absolutely no sense nowadays, and we see them constantly abused to make our lives worse in the end.

It makes sense if you invent a better lightbulb.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#30

Post by 298219640 » Fri, Oct 09, 2015, 9:30 AM UTC

kybernetyk wrote: post #13

298219640 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If companies stop doing research then the research can be done by universities or similar institutes.

Yes, but no university can afford to take the research results, make a cure from it and bring it to market. The regulatory overhead literally devours billions of dollars to get a new medicine approved. And if a company can not expect to have some exclusive rights on that for at least a few years no one is going to spend that money. Competitors could just take your medicine, copy it and sell for lower because they had…

Odds are the "make a cure from it" part would be a human invention and therefore patentable.

And even if all "cures" are no longer patentable - society wants cures to diseases. So if the system isn't delivering cures society will change the approval system[1]. It's not like the current approval process was handed down from god on stone tablets.

1) Or change patent law to cover discoveries from nature.