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

51–60 of 156 posts

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#51

Post by rrmm »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #41
rrmm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It definitely depends on the invention in question.

Consider the case of nuclear weapons. The first big leap is that the energy of fission can be made to be explosively released. Once you know that this is the case, most people in the field might be able to come up with something along the lines of a gun-type warhead.

On the other hand, implosion devices, even if you know they are possible, still require a huge amount of work and design studies to make work reliably. Knowing that they are possible isn't the hard part--making it work is.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#52

Post by personjerry »

Bouncingsoul1 wrote: post #43
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 ?

Yeah, that's exactly what I was drawing on. I'm suggesting it as an arguably similar situation where we appeal to "nature" to deny patents. I brought it up because I think that HN might be more likely to consider software as "ownable" but DNA as not, which could seem like an arbitrary distinction (until we really get to a better reason than "nature").

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#53

Post by caf »

shoo wrote: post #17
eru wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just tossed Abbott. Let's see if that helps.

He wasn't tossed, his party threw him out. We still have to wear the shame of collectively permitting those bastards to be voted in to federal government. They're still there.

His party gave him the arse because polling showed he was seriously on the nose with the electorate and had been so since shortly after his election.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#54

Post by dougabug »

mirimir wrote: post #26
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.

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.

The question should not be whether you believe that it is possible for patents to promote innovation. Rather can you prove based on evidence that they clearly and irrefutably, in fact, do so? Do patents ever harm or retard innovation? Is it economically worth the burden of the patent system for the benefit achieved, or are there better alternatives?

Moreover, how much theoretical economic payoff justifies surrendering a basic right? Should government be given sweeping power to dictate how we use our minds?

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#55

Post by caf »

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…

Here we're not talking about medicines with ruinously expensive approval processes, though; we're talking about gene-based diagnostic tests. Non-invasive diagnostic tests don't have anything like the same kinds of regulatory hassles, because there isn't a question of side-effects - it's purely a question of how accurate they are.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#56

Post by teekert »

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.

You are completely ignoring the fact that large Pharma companies would be unable to have any return on investment, would not be able to pay their employees and thus many people would be unemployed and there would thus be no incentive to even develop new drugs.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#57

Post by WildUtah »

personjerry wrote: post #52
Bouncingsoul1 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, that's exactly what I was drawing on. I'm suggesting it as an arguably similar situation where we appeal to "nature" to deny patents. I brought it up because I think that HN might be more likely to consider software as "ownable" but DNA as not, which could seem like an arbitrary distinction (until we really get to a better reason than "nature").

The overwhelming majority of programmers are strongly opposed to any patents on software. The opponents of gene patents have nothing on the fury programmers vent when they see what lucrative software patents actually look like.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#58

Post by thaumasiotes »

teekert wrote: post #56
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.

You are completely ignoring the fact that large Pharma companies would be unable to have any return on investment, would not be able to pay their employees and thus many people would be unemployed and there would thus be no incentive to even develop new drugs.

I think drug development is one of the strongest cases for a patent system. However:

> many people would be unemployed

This isn't an argument at all. It's better for people to be unemployed than to be employed in an enterprise that makes everyone else worse off.

> and there would thus be no incentive to even develop new drugs

Of course there would. We had drug development before we had patents.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#59

Post by mirimir »

dougabug wrote: post #54
mirimir wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question should not be whether you believe that it is possible for patents to promote innovation. Rather can you prove based on evidence that they clearly and irrefutably, in fact, do so? Do patents ever harm or retard innovation? Is it economically worth the burden of the patent system for the benefit achieved, or are there better alternatives? Moreover, how much theoretical economic payoff justifies surrenderin…

Those are excellent points. There's no doubt that multinationals have gamed the global patent, copyright and trademark systems. On the other hand, it is plausible that the possibility of limited monopoly would promote innovation. But how would one measure costs vs benefits?

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#60

Post by thaumasiotes »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #21
Cyph0n wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

This is what I learned too. I can't for the life of me understand why the US has trade secret laws in addition to the patent laws. From some light reading on wikipedia, the answer seems to be "why do we need a reason?"

Post reply on HN