Myriad vs Supreme Court

[evandael]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/us-usa-court-dna-idUSBRE93D08Q20130415

A group of medical researchers, associations and patients say human genes, including synthetically produced material, should not be patented. They sued in 2009, challenging seven patents owned by or licensed to Myriad on two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. A federal judge said the patents were invalid. An appeals court overruled that decision, and the case landed at the Supreme Court.

Several justices, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, signaled on Monday that they did not think that the simple process of isolating and removing human genes should be patented. But others, such as Justice Elena Kagan, indicated concerns about the impact a broad ruling could have on companies that invest in such research.

TL;DR what ACLU/scholars/'open source information' advocates believe are at stake is your health, and the development of a greater and more widely available regiment of testing and treatment.

but let's be honest, what's really at stake here is..

The biotechnology industry warns that a broad ruling against Myriad could threaten billions of dollars of investment.

[gwb72tii]

well, do you or don't you want a biotech company to develop nanotech targeted gene based anti-cancer therapies?

[herbivor]

well, do you or don't you want a biotech company to develop nanotech targeted gene based anti-cancer therapies?

This ruling does not say they cannot or that their is no financial incentive to do so. The intent of the ruling is to say that you cannot patent nature, something that already exists. If they were allowed to put a patent on nature, I would've ran out the same day to get a patent on H20, to ensure I wouldn't thirst to death.

[evandael]

well, do you or don't you want a biotech company to develop nanotech targeted gene based anti-cancer therapies?

well, do you or don't you want a single entity to have a monopoly on treatment therapies?

[mrsleeve]

This ruling does not say they cannot or that their is no financial incentive to do so. The intent of the ruling is to say that you cannot patent nature, something that already exists. If they were allowed to put a patent on nature, I would've ran out the same day to get a patent on H20, to ensure I wouldn't thirst to death.

What about Monsanto, Dekalb and all the other big Ag hybrid seed outfits???????

[gwb72tii]

well, do you or don't you want a single entity to have a monopoly on treatment therapies?

i want companies to have a financial incentive to make me well if i get sick

[evandael]

that's where you and i differ, i suppose. i don't believe healthcare should be an exclusive profiteering exercise.

what about the free market? what if it is exorbitantly expensive? to me it is a moral question.. if someone is at risk for a life threatening disease, and you know you have the means to help identify/prevent/cure that disease.. do you just tell them 'that'll be $_____' and look the other way when they cannot afford it?

[herbivor]

What about Monsanto, Dekalb and all the other big Ag hybrid seed outfits???????

I think Monsanto's trangenic seeds are pretty well protected. How do you feel about Monsanto suing farmers that don't use their seeds when Monsanto' seed blows over on the land from an adjacent farm and starts growing? They are putting small farmers out of business because of their patented seeds accidentally growing on their land. Now you want someone to be able to patent your genetic Code? For a libertarian I thought you'd be a little more into personal freedom and privacy.

[bmwstephen]

I remember the good o days when organic innovations could not be patented....

[gwb72tii]

that's where you and i differ, i suppose. i don't believe healthcare should be an exclusive profiteering exercise.

what about the free market? what if it is exorbitantly expensive? to me it is a moral question.. if someone is at risk for a life threatening disease, and you know you have the means to help identify/prevent/cure that disease.. do you just tell them 'that'll be $_____' and look the other way when they cannot afford it?

here's the flip side
when you remove any financial incentive for a company to take the risk of developing new drugs/therapies, you ensure there will be no new drugs/therapies.
so let me ask you, how to you tell the person with HIV that they are going to die because there are no drugs to combat it?

[evandael]

^ i get what you're saying, i understand it, but there needs to be a middle ground.


i highly doubt myriad was the only company working on this sort of discovery. they simply got there first.. maybe by years, maybe by months, who knows? certainly they should be rewarded, but in my opinion when it deals with health and lives, not with a stranglehold on the market.

also, they did not 'fabricate' a new human gene. perhaps that would be patentable. what they did was to command-X a section of the gene shown to be common in women who suffered/had a higher propensity for breast and ovarian cancer.


it's a gray area for sure.. but for the sake of development, research, treatment, and lives, i hope the supreme court rules against their patent.

[gwb72tii]

i hope the supreme court rules against their patent.

+1 because discovering a gene is not an invention

also, for my progressive friends, here is where i can actually support things like mapping the brain and other pure science realted things on the public dole

go ahead and map the gene/genome/whatever, but make all the data public so companies like biogen, biotime and others that can then invent remedies for diseases

[mrsleeve]

I think Monsanto's trangenic seeds are pretty well protected. How do you feel about Monsanto suing farmers that don't use their seeds when Monsanto' seed blows over on the land from an adjacent farm and starts growing? They are putting small farmers out of business because of their patented seeds accidentally growing on their land. Now you want someone to be able to patent your genetic Code? For a libertarian I thought you'd be a little more into personal freedom and privacy.

I think you kinda missed my point. You said you cant patent nature, I have provided a instance where nature has most certainly been patented. All you have done is point out how it has been taken to the extremes and over litigated. Of which I dont necessarily agree with.

I am not saying I am endorsing the ideas presented either, I need to do more digging on this topic before I would say ya or nay

[Q5Quint]

Simple fix- your patent only lasts 7 years, and you are liable for damages and cross/genetic modification.

That way farmers could sue monsanto for their 'organic' crops being 'poisoned' by the genetically modified crop.

This would also prevent gene companies from putting in 2nd generation mutations. Imagine if you could get a corn plant to literally not produce corn with the 2nd generation seeds.... that way say your gmo field cross pollinated a farmers organic field where he saves seeds. the next year the farmer plants seeds, which were fertilized by the gmo field next door, and HAHA! any of them pollinated by the gmo crop literally dont produce corn. Suck it organic farmers!

Currently monsanto would then sue the farmer for 'stealing' their seed genes.

Sounds a bit mixed up to me.

I think we should do away with long term patents- 2-3 years at most.
There is nothing about patents that says 'free market', only 'government allowed monopoly on this thing for x years'.

You can make an argument both ways, ie nobody will develop if somebody can just redevelop and sell cheaper tomorrow, or that a patent holds back innovation and better technology because others wont get a chance to improve it for x years.

A balance is what we need. I am thinking 5 years max for anything- software, genetics, hardware etc. Do we want to improve society or just improve the pockets of r&d companies?