I first read "gene patients probably dead".
Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision
111–120 of 156 posts
Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision
#112Did Myriad really claim to own the gene itself as their invention? If so, there are a lot of people who'd probably like to sue them for infecting them with that invention.
It seems to me that all Myriad could possibly patent, is a unique detection method for that gene. But that wouldn't stop anyone from using a different detection method.
But what interests me more about this case is that the article expects an Australian court decision to be taken as global jurisprudence. What's the logic behind that? And is that really where we're headed?
Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision
#113Earlier 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…
"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 argu…
I'm not saying that protections or subsidies are two exclusive options. I'm saying that one or the other is a necessary condition for many kinds of hard R&D. I agree that in practice we have a mix of both.
Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision
#114An odd title; this patent was already struck down by the Supreme Court of the USA in 2013[0]. Now it's no longer valid in Australia. The cost of tests for BRCA1/2 mutations is dropping dramatically; were the medical apparatus of the USA not so drastically broken, the cost to consumers of this test would today cost the consumer around $50 US. This is thanks largely to the ACLU and some geneticists in NYC, including Harry Ostrer.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myriad_Genetics#Association_fo...
Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's a misleading question. I don't think anyone is arguing that all innovation would go away if the patent system was removed. However, it seems possible that innovations that require high initial investment and low ongoing costs (medications, gene patents, etc.) would be produced at a lower rate if the incentives the current system provides were removed.
it seems possible that innovations that require high initial investment and low ongoing costs (medications, gene patents, etc.) would be produced at a lower rate Good point, I don't necessarily disagree. But is a lot of the R&D to get around existing patents, rather than build a new thing entirely? In the software world I think we can safely say yes. Regarding medical research I'm not qualified to say. I'd love to he…
"A way to work around a patent" means "a different way to do something". Much of the time, that's no gain, but sometimes they find a better way to do something. So figuring out ways to work around patents is not just a complete waste.
Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision
#116Earlier 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.
I tend to agree with Cyph0n that patents can promote innovation.
They can also inhibit innovation. Something to consider...
Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision
#117Did Myriad really claim to own the gene itself as their invention? If so, there are a lot of people who'd probably like to sue them for infecting them with that invention. It seems to me that all Myriad could possibly patent, is a unique detection method for that gene. But that wouldn't stop anyone from using a different detection method. But what interests me more about this case is that the article expects an Austr…
> But what interests me more about this case is that the article expects an Australian court decision to be taken as global jurisprudence. What's the logic behind that?
I wondered that, too. But in a parallel comment, ihodes pointed out that this was already ruled unpatentable by the US court system. Courts do keep an eye on decisions from other nations; if they find the logic convincing, they're likely to adopt it. So if the US and Australia are following the same logic, it's likely to be adopted pretty much universally.
Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision
#118Looking 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…
We could ask, though, which R&D gets protected by patents but not by copyright or trade secrets? Which R&D would not produce a return on investment if patents didn't exist?
Drug research, perhaps, though we might be able to find other solutions there, or produce a much more limited form of patent for that industry alone. What else currently depends fundamentally on patents for its business model?
Looking at the many groups working on FOSS media codecs past and present (VP8, VP9, AoM, Opus, Vorbis), I'd say the media situation would actually get better in the absence of patents.
Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision
#119Looking 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…
I think that's a misleading question. I don't think anyone is arguing that all innovation would go away if the patent system was removed. However, it seems possible that innovations that require high initial investment and low ongoing costs (medications, gene patents, etc.) would be produced at a lower rate if the incentives the current system provides were removed.
Big investments (today it's things like the Internet, Space Exploration; long ago it was the Roman naval assault bridge, the Library of Alexandria) always require state-led investment for sustainability. Copying protection have almost nothing to do with them.
Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision
#120An odd title; this patent was already struck down by the Supreme Court of the USA in 2013[0]. Now it's no longer valid in Australia. The cost of tests for BRCA1/2 mutations is dropping dramatically; were the medical apparatus of the USA not so drastically broken, the cost to consumers of this test would today cost the consumer around $50 US. This is thanks largely to the ACLU and some geneticists in NYC, including Ha…
Does anyone know how the medical test at the heart of this legal issue compares to something like the raw data from 23andme? 23andme v4 gives you 25 SNPs for BRCA1 and BRCA2.