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

101–110 of 156 posts

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#101

Post by dboreham »

doki_pen wrote: post #70
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.

Not true. Patents increase the incentive for people to do hard research and development. Whether or not that increased incentive is necessary is debatable.

What you say may be true in some cases but I personally think twice or three times about doing any hard research and development because the chances are either some megacorp or patent troll will eventually come eat my lunch with bogus claims of infringement and the associated high cost of litigation.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#102

Post by ekianjo »

melling wrote: post #73
ekianjo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true at all. Look at Bio drugs for example. Even when they are to be generiqued, there is almost no company jumping in to make them because it's damn hard to make in the first place and there is very little incentive to do so, so the major players stay in place. A good example: all injectable diabetes drugs, but there are others out there as well.

I can't tell if this is a reputable site but it catalogs drugs as they become generic: http://www.drugs.com/generic-approvals.html I know people who have fought not to have generic or bio-similar drugs. Anyway, can you provide references to validate your claim? Just because someone says something on the Internet doesn't make it true.

Look at all Insulins - there are no generics. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-there-no-generic-insul...

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#103

Post by novaleaf »

icanhackit wrote: post #98
rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is: what kind of valuable things would still be produced? You'll still get iPhones, but will you get ARM cores or Snapdragon chipsets or LTE or MPEG4 or pills that cure Hep-C? The bigger picture is that almost all hard R&D takes place under the umbrella of some sort of protection from copying. Intel spends billions a year on semiconductor R&D, and protects it with trade secrets. Pharma companies spend bi…

You make some compelling points but I'm still not convinced that this form of protectionism is the only avenue to innovation. The strength of a company is often in its organization, processes, location, and systems which are difficult to copy in a cohesive way without being gifted with similar circumstances. Why can't a company's strength and success in the marketplace be defined by these characteristics as opposed t…

> I'm still not convinced that this form of protectionism is the only avenue to innovation.

Protections of inventions (as loose as the term "invention" might be) isn't the only avenue to innovation, but it is an avenue.

There is always going to be a pull between free/open and paid/private. It's a good thing that multiple avenues exist, because some public-good innovations may happen under one regime but not the other.

Also, I take issue with the terms of the "it should be free" conversation here. The patent isn't for the gene: the company does not hold the rights to your DNA. The patent is for the discovery of it's link to cancer.

In this exact circumstance, I question how long it would take for this gene to be identified as a causal-link to breast cancer if there was not the bait of a financial windfall. Is there a smoking gun that shows this company beat out a public institution to this discovery?

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#104

Post by Gatsky »

I think the fears that this will stifle innovation are greatly exaggerated. In fact, this patent was stifling innovation. Because of the expense, we have tested far fewer patients than we could have for BRCA1/2 mutations, and there thus remain many mutations of unknown significance that can only be resolved with more detailed clinical annotation from testing many more people. It's a classic case of a patent hampering the usefulness of an invention, so that someone can make money.

Myriad really were relentless opportunists with very well fed lawyers. The idea of a patent on a gene is completely nonsensical to anybody working in genomics these days. I can pay $1000 and sequence all 3 billion base pairs of my DNA. Using open source software and publicly available databases funded by governments and charities I can analyse my own DNA. What role does a gene patent have in any of this? What if I discover that I have an unreported variant in the patented gene? Can I now patent my own version of the gene, and charge my offspring a license fee for reproducing this gene each time one of their cells divide? Do they pay extra if they are homozygous?

Soul-destroying patent disputes have become a feature of the life sciences, it drives me mad. The story is always the same. A scientist performing research in a seemingly unimpressive field discovers something interesting. They generously publish their rough results because that's how science works. Then someone else comes along and refines it a bit before slapping a patent on it, because nobody else has yet. 20 years of legal battles ensue. Companies are still fighting over the PCR patents for example, even AFTER the patents have expired [1]. Now it looks like the same crap is going to transpire with CRISPR. The funny thing about these cases is that most of the research and innovation happens at the beginning, before the patents are even in operation, again questioning the notion that patents foster innovation.

As has been pointed out many times before, it is rare for a biotech/life sciences company to generate the kind of profit that permits them to do blue sky research. Most of that happens from government funded work. Big pharma doesn't really count, it costs them too much to develop each drug. They certainly don't have anything akin to Bell Labs, Xerox PARC or Google X.

Anyway, Myriad actually doesn't have any products any more. All the extremely simple tests they do can be run by anyone. They offer a whole lot of 'services' like genetic counselling and patient education, but that's all to create a veneer of legitimacy and hide the fact they are patent trolls. I feel sorry for their scientists trying to do research in this environment.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction#Paten...

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#105

Post by DannyBee »

rayiner wrote: post #95
icanhackit wrote: post #75

Looking at some of the for and against arguments regarding patents, let's play a mental game: would new, valuable things still be created if the patent system didn't exist? I think yes. The creator wouldn't necessarily benefit directly, but in a way we all indirectly benefit from new technology and ideas. Much the same as it would be better for the poor to have free or affordable essential health care, our society wo…

The question is: what kind of valuable things would still be produced? You'll still get iPhones, but will you get ARM cores or Snapdragon chipsets or LTE or MPEG4 or pills that cure Hep-C? The bigger picture is that almost all hard R&D takes place under the umbrella of some sort of protection from copying. Intel spends billions a year on semiconductor R&D, and protects it with trade secrets. Pharma companies spend bi…

"The bigger picture is that almost all hard R&D takes place under the umbrella of some sort of protection from copying."

There is a huge difference between protection from copying, and protection from building similar things that achieve the same goal. Patents are not simply "protection from copying".

Drug patents often cover things like "using the same body mechanism to achieve a desired result".

(Now, you can argue this is necessary to protect them, but let's be clear - it's not straight copying if i make a pill with a completely different chemical composition that ends up triggering the same mechanisms. However, it likely runs afoul of their carefully drafted patents.

I'm also aware there are chemical compound patents that would not cover me doing this, but usually, when the drug companies can, they get both)

"Intel spends billions a year on semiconductor R&D, and protects it with trade secrets"

and design mask protection (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_desi...)

"Pharma companies spend billions on drug R&D and protect them with patents. "

They are also heavily subsidized, unlike your intel example. Tax payers, for example, pay about 50% of pharma's R&D costs (and pharma includes a lot more than actual R&D in R&D cost). http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2012/02/the-costly-myths-abo...

and http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/02/16/What-Those-...

"Hard R&D that isn't protected from copying is usually subsidized. "

Pharma, one of your examples, is both heavily protected and heavily subsidized. Heck, Intel gets huge R&D tax breaks too.

In truth, most of the heavily protected stuff is subsidized by tax payers in various forms anyway.

The idea that these companies are out there, doing it on their own, without essentially getting most of the R&D cost subsidized through tax breaks/etc, is a huge myth.

We don't have the model you propose. We have a model where it is both heavily protected and heavily subsidized.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#106

Post by kbenson »

icanhackit wrote: post #98
rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is: what kind of valuable things would still be produced? You'll still get iPhones, but will you get ARM cores or Snapdragon chipsets or LTE or MPEG4 or pills that cure Hep-C? The bigger picture is that almost all hard R&D takes place under the umbrella of some sort of protection from copying. Intel spends billions a year on semiconductor R&D, and protects it with trade secrets. Pharma companies spend bi…

You make some compelling points but I'm still not convinced that this form of protectionism is the only avenue to innovation. The strength of a company is often in its organization, processes, location, and systems which are difficult to copy in a cohesive way without being gifted with similar circumstances. Why can't a company's strength and success in the marketplace be defined by these characteristics as opposed t…

Let's not reduce this argument to innovation for companies. Individuals innovate and patent as well.

There is a tendency to focus purely on the negative effects of a system that seems to be failing it's purpose. It's important to understand the system as a whole, and it's history. Has the patent system ever functioned for the purpose it was designed for? If it isn't functioning correctly now, is that in part or in whole? Is it not functioning because it has been changed, because the world has changed, or both.

Finally, is there a way to alter the system, whether that be to curtail it, expand it, or just change how it operates, that might yield a better functioning system?

Personally, I'm not for abolishing patents. They had a very clearly defined purpose (innovation encouragement) when they were first created. I think they've been mostly perverted into another purpose (wealth protection), more-so in some industries than others. They've been expanded from court rulings to cover things which were not originally thought patentable. What we need here is a well reasoned legislative overhaul. What we'll get if we're extremely lucky is a hole-ridden clusterfuck of revisions, but if we're lucky, it will somewhat address the current problems. The new problems will be something we discover and address tomorrow.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#107

Post by JoeAltmaier »

kbenson wrote: post #106
icanhackit wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make some compelling points but I'm still not convinced that this form of protectionism is the only avenue to innovation. The strength of a company is often in its organization, processes, location, and systems which are difficult to copy in a cohesive way without being gifted with similar circumstances. Why can't a company's strength and success in the marketplace be defined by these characteristics as opposed t…

Let's not reduce this argument to innovation for companies . Individuals innovate and patent as well. There is a tendency to focus purely on the negative effects of a system that seems to be failing it's purpose. It's important to understand the system as a whole, and it's history. Has the patent system ever functioned for the purpose it was designed for? If it isn't functioning correctly now, is that in part or in w…

I don't think you can disentangle those two purposes. Innovation is encouraged precisely because you can profit from your invention.

I believe the cost and delay of patent litigation is the real problem. It's important to identify the critical issue before effective change can happen.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#108

Post by kbenson »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #107
kbenson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not reduce this argument to innovation for companies . Individuals innovate and patent as well. There is a tendency to focus purely on the negative effects of a system that seems to be failing it's purpose. It's important to understand the system as a whole, and it's history. Has the patent system ever functioned for the purpose it was designed for? If it isn't functioning correctly now, is that in part or in w…

I don't think you can disentangle those two purposes. Innovation is encouraged precisely because you can profit from your invention. I believe the cost and delay of patent litigation is the real problem. It's important to identify the critical issue before effective change can happen.

My point was when wealth protection is a tool to bolster innovation, then the incentives are aligned correctly. When people, or more importantly legislators, forget that and think the purpose of patents is to reward for innovation, we get some perverse incentives. In a perfect world, protection would be inversely proportional to the amount of innovation the sector is experiencing, and would also be scaled to the amount the innovation helps. But those are both hard to measure realistically.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#109

Post by ekianjo »

doki_pen wrote: post #70
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.

Not true. Patents increase the incentive for people to do hard research and development. Whether or not that increased incentive is necessary is debatable.

Problem is that patents are not used the way they were intended to. A patent was supposed to be licensable so that other companies could still use the said technology if they so wished. But in practice what patents do is lock the market and prevent the exploitation of said technologies until they expire, which in turn slow down innovation significantly.

And don't even get me started on all the "obvious" patents out there, or the one that clearly are no invention because prior art actually exists - but then they take years to be invalidated, if ever. It is just an enormous debt on Society as a whole.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#110

Post by ekianjo »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #58
teekert wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

And moreover, there are other ways to protect your invention without using patents - such as trade secrets, manufacturing expertise, exclusive supplier agreements, and of course, ONGOING innovation (instead of inventing one thing and getting a rent out of it for 20 years).

Post reply on HN