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

71–80 of 156 posts

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#71

Post by JulianMorrison »

mirimir wrote: post #59
dougabug wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's arguable that limited monopoly promotes the first innovation. But it should be obvious, it prevents all the possible third party innovations that riff off the first.

It's easy to miss the dog that didn't bark, or the improvement that couldn't be sold.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#72

Post by doki_pen »

ekianjo wrote: post #65
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.

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.

Absurd, the price of albuterol has gone up 10 fold since patents have been reinforced on it. When companies have patents on life saving drugs they can charge whatever they want. If they have no patent, they are forced to keep the price low enough so no one wants to compete.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#73

Post by melling »

ekianjo wrote: post #65
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.

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.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#74

Post by doki_pen »

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?

It also said that it can develop naturally, without human intervention. I think it's a stretch to say that the software we create can develop naturally.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#75

Post by icanhackit »

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 would have more able-bodied and able-minded people to work or even conduct themselves in a way that didn't transmit their illness, whether physically or through dependance.

By leaving the weak weakened, we indirectly transmit that ailment to others by physical and economic forces. You're only as strong as your weakest point.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#76

Post by tectec »

amelius wrote: post #66

Does this mean that Monsanto's patents are also invalid?

I would think that Monsanto's patents are quite different. They use plant breeding to create new varieties. These patents of Myriad Genetics are just using DNA sequencing to find existing genes.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#77

Post by mtgx »

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…

That's nice, but if I'm Turing Pharmaceuticals or Microsoft, I probably don't care about all of that, and I only care about my immediate gain and exploitation of the patent system.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#78

Post by Peaker »

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.

They also decrease the incentive for people to do research and development (e.g: as derivative works from existing inventions).

Which effect is stronger? It is very plausible that overall, the decrease is far stronger than the increase, as the vast majority of inventions are derivative.

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#79

Post by icanhackit »

mtgx wrote: post #77
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…

That's nice, but if I'm Turing Pharmaceuticals or Microsoft, I probably don't care about all of that, and I only care about my immediate gain and exploitation of the patent system.

So perhaps the innovation could be in the process, not the result?

Re: Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

#80

Post by vesinisa »

tectec wrote: post #76
amelius wrote: post #66

Does this mean that Monsanto's patents are also invalid?

I would think that Monsanto's patents are quite different. They use plant breeding to create new varieties. These patents of Myriad Genetics are just using DNA sequencing to find existing genes.

I agree with your view that Monsanto is unlikely affected, but the article is quite misleadingly named. With "gene patent" I immediately think of Monsanto. But this ruling seems to only affect those who claim exclusive right to discovering properties of existing genes - not those who create organisms with unique genetic properties, like Monsanto.
Post reply on HN