4 ms·
This article from last week suggests that the patent may not be that important. A team has recently discovered a second protein that can be used to power the cr
by gmisra 11y ago
This article from last week suggests that the patent may not be that important. A team has recently discovered a second protein that can be used to power the crispr process, and they believe that more such proteins may exist [1].
...but patenting proteins still feels ridiculous. This is information that all of humanity has, basically, equal access to. Finding something in this pile "first" and planting a flag in the ground seems like a pretty terrible way to share knowledge. There is a somewhat forced analogy here between genetic exploration and global exploration in the colonial period, but I think most historians would agree that the "I got here first" model of "rights" ended up exacerbating existing gaps between haves and have-nots.
[1] http://www.wired.com/2015/09/war-genome-editing-just-got-lot-interesting/ http://www.wired.com/2015/09/war-genome-editing-just-got-lot...
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoI'm not sure proteins have to be 'found'. They can be invented. Then they are a lot more like a copyright and not a patent.
- 88e282102ae2e5b 11y agoYou could then still have the distinction between synthetic proteins and natural ones, and only permit patents on the synthetic ones.
- comrh 11y agoWhat if you make a synthetic protein and then find it in nature? What if you build bacteria to make the synthetic protein? The difference between synthetic and natural seems like it would be very murky.
- bane 11y agoThe fun question is, if somebody invents one, and it's found in nature later, is that sufficient prior art to invalidate the patent?