Today, my fellow escapists, I have only one question; why the hell can people put patents on genes?
Gene Patents
- Thread starter Froggy Slayer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They're supposed to be used to protect substantial investment in something like GM crops or a medical treatment, which will take billions to get to the stage where it's a useful product. For uses like these, it's totally fine in my opinion, but we should still have the right to create the gene synthetically or isolate it, as long as we're not ripping off the original product.
It seems weird but makes sense in a small minority (of the important cases).
It seems weird but makes sense in a small minority (of the important cases).
What people aren't telling you is that a pharmaceutical company has in fact taken Gene's genes, fiddled with them a bit, cloned him a few times and then patented the clones. It's a conspiracy. I read about it on the internet, and now you have too!Guffe said:Oh dang.
I entered this thread hoping to read about patents that gene (Gene Simmons) has
Very misleading title my dear sir.
As to the issue, it's because of money. Medicinal patents are around ostencibly to protect investment, but really to guarantee the greatest profit possible. The most interesting thing is that you do have some countries which refuse to extend the patents from one country into their market. Brazil springs to mind here. The government there decided that producing an affordable HIV/AIDS treatment was more important than the patent held over it by a US company. As such, they started producing the product for a greatly reduced price and have been able to offer it to their citizens. US publishing houses did a similar thing with non-US authors in the early days of copyright law because the law only covered work produced by US citizens. As such, they would publish copies of English and other international texts without paying royalties to the authors and use the money saved to pay for publishing rights over American literature. I suspect that there will be more people in desperate situations disregarding medical patents in the future. It should be interesting to see how the law adapts.
.>Labyrinth said:What people aren't telling you is that a pharmaceutical company has in fact taken Gene's genes, fiddled with them a bit, cloned him a few times and then patented the clones. It's a conspiracy. I read about it on the internet, and now you have too!Guffe said:Oh dang.
I entered this thread hoping to read about patents that gene (Gene Simmons) has
Very misleading title my dear sir.
.>
Holy crap, so you're telling me now all they need to do is do the same with Paul Stanley, Tommy Thayer and Eric Singer and I'll be able to listen to KISS forever??!!!
HALLELLUJAH!!!
Because once a gene is extracted from the DNA it is regarded as just a chemical compound and as such enables a company to prosecute your ass for even extracting it, not to mention experimental uses for possible illness cures.
Basically, every cell in your body should be sued for illegally copying those genes. Better hide your savings!
Apparently you can put patents on everything. That's why Monsanto basically has a monopoly on crops on the US market. Or every lab in the world has to pay royalties for using mice for cancer research.
Basically, every cell in your body should be sued for illegally copying those genes. Better hide your savings!
Apparently you can put patents on everything. That's why Monsanto basically has a monopoly on crops on the US market. Or every lab in the world has to pay royalties for using mice for cancer research.
Actually, we already have that technology. It's known as.. the sound recording! It comes in a variety of different formats to suit your portability needs.Guffe said:.>
.>
Holy crap, so you're telling me now all they need to do is do the same with Paul Stanley, Tommy Thayer and Eric Singer and I'll be able to listen to KISS forever??!!!
HALLELLUJAH!!!
Its funny, someone owns the patent on the breast cancer gene but they cant be prosecuted for murder from all the people killed by their product or even their business practices holding back cure research that then results in peoples deaths.
I liked the story where monsantos corn crossbred with natural strains of corn in mexico and they tried to sue the mexican farmers for violating patent law and the courts said to fuck off.
I liked the story where monsantos corn crossbred with natural strains of corn in mexico and they tried to sue the mexican farmers for violating patent law and the courts said to fuck off.
The answer is simple: US patent law is broken.Froggy Slayer said:
Interestingly enough, those knobbers rolled into Australia and tried to sue a bunch of pathology labs screening for the genes in question but using an entirely different method for doing so... Aussie courts said "fuck off, you can't patent a gene only the method for screening for it."Quaxar said:
Well I look forward to the day I'm sued by Apple because my DNA is somewhat similar to their iClone range
I was bit taken aback by the fact genes can be patented given how bizarre it sounds as genes occur naturally and cannot really be manufactured. Though I suppose if genetic engineering ever becomes widespread I guess patenting genes would likely be handy for some. It's still a bit weird though.
I was bit taken aback by the fact genes can be patented given how bizarre it sounds as genes occur naturally and cannot really be manufactured. Though I suppose if genetic engineering ever becomes widespread I guess patenting genes would likely be handy for some. It's still a bit weird though.
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-womens-rights/aclu-challenges-patents-breast-cancer-genes-0cotss2012 said:
god, i hate stupid people that talk crap but can't be bothered to know the first thing about a subject before talking. BRCA1 and 2 are both linked to causing breast and ovarian cancer and both are "Owned" by Myriad Genetics.