h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

$2.5o please.... (.50 US)

$2.5o please.... (.50 US)

Have you guys heard that microsoft have patiented the 'double click'!
Do you think that biotech firms should be able to patient the genes that they sequence?

#1 doesn't surprise me
#2 no.

Yes, I'd heard about the Microsoft one.

My gut reaction to the patenting of genes is "no". As one of the articles linked to above mentions, in at least one case there seems to have been a slow down in a certain type of breast cancer research because of the licencing fees involved in studying a patented gene. On the other hand, unless done as a government project, a lot of medical research wouldn't get done unless companies were given something like patent control over the products of the research.

Very good point. Medicine is a big money business, and always has been.
Individuals might think they are doing their research to benifit mankind/womankind, some of them actually do. But nothing get's done unless there's a profit involved.
But could these guy's sue me for having one of their patented genes present in my genome? Crazy talk, is it not?

I can see patenting methods for extracting and inserting DNA (or whatever you are doing to DNA). I can see patenting medecines and therapies. I simply can't see how one could patent basic genetic components that are not just within the body, but are components of life.....

I don't think there'll be any sueing of people for carrying particular genes in their chromosomes. As long as you've had those genes since conception, there shouldn't be a problem. There is, however, the problem on the horizon of the unlicence use of gene therapy techniques, particularly expected to occur among athletes seeking to enhance their muscles. These uses will be virtually undetectable since the therapuetic gene is identical to the naturally occuring one.http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=15351113-2B35-221B-65C7E677E44801E7&ARTICLEID_CHAR=154D84E6-2B35-221B-6C1EDB012544E834&sc=I100322 (Sorry. It's just a summary of the article.)

Glad we've cleared that one up. I can fire my lawyers now!
About the athletes thing, well if it's undetectable, it's not cheating.

I agree, Mudhooks: It's sort of like saying "I'm going to patent the human liver." The idea of the patent is to provide an assured return on the investment made to obtain the information (in this case, the gene sequence). It's "free" enterprise and, as such, it is morally repugnant. The thing that's really strange is that it's actually government legislating profits for corporations, so it really isn't free enterprise but rather government trying to use market forces to create social good. To my mind it would be better for government just to say "okay you scientists, we'll feed, clothe and house you; you make a better world, okay?"

I agree copyrights and patents have gone nuts in the last few years, come companies are now patenting slight genetic modifications of plants - and by slight I mean the kind you get from cross breeding, not genetic manipulation in a lab.

at any rate here is a good take on copyright by the Spider Robinson
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm

now please excuse me while I go file for copyright on the I-IV-V 12 bar progression known as the blues.$$$$$

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1033723.stm

I include this one for novelty's sake but mostly for the internet address at the end of the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/business/02patent.html?ei=5090&en=5d112c6a0334f041&ex=1249099200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&adxnnlx=1091490518-ySeyz20mi1w8SiGy169Xqw

yes, it is a misuse of the patent system - absurd!

Some potter in the American midwest contested Donald Trump's claim to exclusive rights over the term 'you're fired.' Apparently Your Fired is the name of her pottery company.

Bloody 'eck....

Un-be-flipping-lievable!

"See yourself as a Brando-like rebel? You'd better get permission first"

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1329864,00.html


"Alarmed that the actor's name and image may be used for commercial gain without its say-so, the Brando estate has applied for trademark protection with the US patent and trademark office."


On the other hand, would any self-respecting rebel bother to ask for permission?


az