Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 156 posts

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#41

Post by JulianMorrison »

rrmm wrote: post #39
venomsnake wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But on the other hand reproducing the result without reading the patent, should be able to invalidate said patent. If I don't care how you achieved the one click purchase button, I should be able to have my implementation on my page.

That's too low of a standard imo: just knowing something is possible and what that specific thing is, confers a lot of useful information.

However, that argument also suggests that trade secrets are not much of a barrier to innovation.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#42

Post by belorn »

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.

Does that mean that National Institutes of Health can also shut down its research, saving some $30 billion in taxes to go elsewhere? Here we have tax money that funds universities and researchers, and apparently 20 years patents are required to find uses from all that work.

Lets also forget that passing drug test also grants additional state granted monopolies as a way to encourage just the very scenario stated above.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#43

Post by Bouncingsoul1 »

personjerry wrote: post #34

Although we might be clear on what we perceive to be the right ruling, it is not always so simple. For example, what if we claimed in software that any software program, given that it is merely a series of bits, is therefore merely a number, and thus a "product of mathematics" not produced by man?

Something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number ?

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#44

Post by bjz_ »

personjerry wrote: post #34

Although we might be clear on what we perceive to be the right ruling, it is not always so simple. For example, what if we claimed in software that any software program, given that it is merely a series of bits, is therefore merely a number, and thus a "product of mathematics" not produced by man?

I would say yes - programs are discovered, not invented. We are just incrementally exploring a possibility space. In fact I would say that is true of any creative endeavor.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#45

Post by taylorfinley »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #37
personjerry wrote: post #34

Although we might be clear on what we perceive to be the right ruling, it is not always so simple. For example, what if we claimed in software that any software program, given that it is merely a series of bits, is therefore merely a number, and thus a "product of mathematics" not produced by man?

Copyright is far and away the best IP category for software - I strongly argue it is a form of literacy anyway. And I am not convinced there is any mathematics outside the mind of humans - it's an odd one, but is not maths a model of the world rather than the world itself?

Some would argue there are no human minds outside of math (Max Tegmark, for example)

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#46

Post by JulianMorrison »

belorn wrote: post #38
JulianMorrison wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they made any sense from the get go, not even in the steam age. In general, the first implementation of a good idea was a bad one, of limited use, not a well refined concept. And then the patent-holder sat on the patent until it expired, and then - finally - the whatever-it-was became a vital and widely used commodity as creativity started to be applied. So all it did was slow the pace of change.

Patents worked great for what they were intended for, which was for the English crown to raise funds outside of parliaments control, and later in the US when they used it to encourage the immigration of skilled workers. The English crown had the big problem that its treasury was dictated by parliament during the 16th century, so it sold royal decrees (writ patents) granting exclusive rights. Parliament passed after a…

Kings, huh. An awful idea.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#47

Post by ubernostrum »

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.

Actually, people have lived thousands of years with refrigeration. Insulated structures using evaporative cooling systems (capable of acting as air conditioners, or of maintaining near-freezing temperatures suitable for refrigeration) are known to date back to the 14th century BC.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#48

Post by flipp3r »

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…

You should read the comment section of the second link. The badly done research was done by someone whose business is selling snake oil with c60 in it.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#49

Post by mirimir »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #35
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.

I think you are conflating several issues here. Firstly there is a difference between natural product and traditional cures / medicine. See the below link for the recent Nobel prize, or just imagine the difference between chemical isolation of aspirin and understanding it's pathways and "chew some bark of that tree" I think it is fair and valid for scientific inquiry to be considered seperate and more than traditiona…

Yes, there are distinctions to be made. But the status quo is clearly absurd.

Also, contrasting "scientific inquiry" vs "traditional correlation" in the context of patents is misleading. There's no requirement to demonstrate mechanistic understanding to get a patent. So it's arguably all just correlation.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#50

Post by MichaelGG »

bjz_ wrote: post #44
personjerry wrote: post #34

Although we might be clear on what we perceive to be the right ruling, it is not always so simple. For example, what if we claimed in software that any software program, given that it is merely a series of bits, is therefore merely a number, and thus a "product of mathematics" not produced by man?

I would say yes - programs are discovered, not invented. We are just incrementally exploring a possibility space. In fact I would say that is true of any creative endeavor.

Isn't that true of the universe itself? So it's likely not a very useful definition when trying to make distinctions.
Post reply on HN