Can anyone explain in three words or less what you can patent? Okay, make that three paragraphs or less. I just heard about patenting genes on the radio and I was really surprised. I had heard about the conflict over patenting cures to genetic diseases, but patenting the genes themselves seems really weird. If I found a rare berry in the deep woods, and named it the Borisberry, could I patent it?
I wouldn’t think so, but it doesn’t seem like genes are invented, it just seems like they’re found. But maybe I’m confused as to what a gene is. I thought a gene was just a chunk of DNA that meant something to the anatomy and/or physiology of the organism. So what’s the Patent Office thinking?
Anyway, I’m not tryin ta turn this into a Great Debate cause I don’t know enough about it yet. I’m just trying to figure out the general idea behind patents - previous to modern genetic research, could you patent anything you didn’t invent?
Generally, patents are for inventions. However, lately, they’ve been granted for living things. For instance, if you breed a new form of berry (the Borisberry), then you can patent it. I don’t think you can patent anything you find already growing, though.
People are trying to patent particular gene sequences that they have put together. There are some debates as to the ethics of this.
“East is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.” – Marx
Patenting a gene is one of the first things a modern molecular biologist will do once they discover one. AFAIK, any manipulation of that gene or its protein product for commercial use (especailly for use in as a drug) means big moolah for the discoverer (or their institution).
Despite the potential finacial boon for otherwise money-strapped biomedical scientists (not that I’m at all biased), it’s still a very controversial topic in the life science community.
If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I’d be at home with a pack of cigarettes and a short length of hose.
The concept of patenting a (human) gene seems a little screwy to me. Couldn’t the person in whom it was discovered contest it? One would think the patent, if any were to be awarded, should go to the parents. At minimum they should be able to argue it was “prior art.”
You guys are missing the point here. Yes, the gene may exist in a natural state (although usually there has been some minor alteration) but if you went through the headache of extracting it, cloning it, and sequencing it (all at great cost to you) then presumably you’d like some claim to it.
Using the logic of it being ‘natural’ and thus not patentable is no different than saying you shouldn’t be able to copyright or trademark a design on the basis that it is just a bunch of ink/ paintstrokes that were prior art and just arranged in a certain way. If the phone company can ‘patent’ the phone book (and make other companies pay a fee for copying their list of names) then molecular biologists should be allowed to patent genes they uncover. Of course, I too am a little biased (with a business and pharmaceutical background) so come up with your own opinion…
you’re still missing the point. look back at what alphagene said. you can’t patent something already in existence. you have to have done some manipulation (of genetic material in this instance).
the things you can patent, other than new gene sequences, are methods & designs that you invented. in any case, they have to be sufficiently different from everything else in that technical field that it can be considered a totally new thing.
a method is any way you do something, from how a motor works to how a software program is written (altho that particular area has some iffy problems that are being worked out now).
a design is just how something looks beyond how it works. depending on what it is, it may be decided to trademark rather than patent a design, or do both.
patents, trademarks, & copyrights are 3 different things. you can copyright anything by just saying it’s copyrighted. you don’t actually have to register it anywhere. & you can sell licensing rights to all 3 kinds of intellectual property.
OK, I spoke too soon. I hoped that the “AFAIK” i put in my post would indicate that I’m not expert in biotech patent law.
OK, attempting to redeem myself, I looked up some hard data on gene patenting.
I found a commentary in an issue of Science from John J. Doll, director of Biotechnology Examination of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
He says in this article:
So you can’t just point to a gene on a genetic map and say “mine”. You need prove that you have isolated the gene. Plus, you are patenting the sequence, which means you need to have sequenced the gene, which believe me, is not simple.
At least that’s how I understand the whole deal.
If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I’d be at home with a pack of cigarettes and a short length of hose.
The phone company claims a compilation copyright (not a patent). It means that people can’t just copy the list, but if they get the information they can make their own listing.
The SDMB claims compilation copyright on everything we write here, BTW.
“East is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.” – Marx
In addition to patenting genes, the US Patent Office has been handing out patents for plants for most of this century. Usually they are some special sort of cultivated flower.
You can’t go and pick a wild poppy next spring and ask for a patent on it however.