9 ms·

According to 18.37.3 and 4, microorganisms cannot be excluded from patentability. I assume this is to allow patenting of things like probiotics. However, all hu

According to 18.37.3 and 4, microorganisms cannot be excluded from patentability. I assume this is to allow patenting of things like probiotics. However, all humans rely their skin, mouth, and gut floras to be healthy. If the bacteria and yeast in that flora can't be excluded from patentability, are they considered not a part of the human animal? I understand that probiotics should be protected, but I wonder if someone could take advantage of this and claim patent on any naturally occurring microorganism by just isolating it and showing that it has some use. Something else not specified in this section are viruses. Viruses are not strictly microorganisms, and no mention is made of them, but yet they can be manufactured and used for treatments- recently even for cancer: http://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-divisions/department-molecular-medicine/harnessing-viruses-treat-cancer http://www.mayo.edu/research/departments-divisions/departmen... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/02/fda-approval-imlygic-cancer-hunting-viral-treatment http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/02/fda-approval-... If viruses could be excluded from patentability since they aren't mentioned, then any research or manufacturing done would not be patentable, and therefore some companies may hesitate to invest too heavily in research.

aroch 11y ago
I think the spirit of this to allow for drastically modified yeast that produce, say, anti-cancer drug X to be patented. To make the biological equivalent of an industrial methods patent. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to protect your IP even though significant effort has gone into creating a chimeric yeast, because its just a collection of natural products (natural product's are currently not patentable). Still, seems a little odd / slippery slope-y to me. On the one hand, I understand and, to some extent, agree with the need to protect / profit off what you've developed. On the otherhand, USPTO is pretty bad at biological patent screening and I can see a huge landrush to patent bacteria for no good reason. (Full disclosure, I am in the process of patenting a modified natural product made by a bacteria)
- david-given 11y ago
  I've never understood why people patent organisms. That's not an ethical thing --- I understand why people want IP protection. It just seems like the wrong mechanism. Isn't the goal of restricting copying of your engineered organism better suited to the copyright system, rather than the patent system? Patents are for processes, right? But an organism is a thing, not a process. Isn't making an illegal copy of that thing a copyright violation?
  - aroch 11y ago
    Patenting an organism that you've tweaked, tuned and bent to your will is, in the end, no different than patenting a unique alloying mix or manufacturing machine. They aren't patenting the organism per se, they're patenting the processes they've developed that make use of the organisms as the scaffold/factory. In the case I outlined previously of a yeast making a drug, you would want the patent on the cellular machinery that you've built to make the drug, which is the process.
    - avar 11y ago
      No, they're patenting the organism, or the end result. If you come up with an entirely different process to tweak the same organism by happenstance it's still covered by the patent. This is pretty much the definition of how patents differ from copyright law, if I word-for-word write come up with the same work as you and I can prove that I didn't copy yours, it's not covered by copyright law. With patents it doesn't matter that I came up with it on my own, you own the rights to the end result.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Exactly. It's why we tried to fight that crap back when they first tried it.
      - aroch 11y ago
        I'm not so sure, how is the end result any different than patenting a better manufacturing technique? That happens all the time in the macro-world. Again, I'm not sure how I feel on whether it should be patentable or not. But, at least as I understand it, their intent is protection for something they've spent millions/billions developing -- no different than the process patents we have now.
- bcabs 11y ago
  > the need to protect / profit off what you've developed. first mistake.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  How many of these are the government's fault? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Industrial_disasters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disaster...
  - debacle 11y ago
    I'd argue that most of them are the government's fault, but in favor of more regulation (and bigger teeth), not less.
  - mangeletti 11y ago
    The very first (more deaths than all the rest combined) one in the list (Bhopal disaster[1])... "Government-controlled banks and the Indian public holding a 49.1 percent stake." The government and public quite literally owned half of Union Carbide company at the time of the disaster. Fault can't really get more directly placed than that. The hopes of private industry are that an entirely private corporation, in order to protect its brand's value, needs to avoid this sort of thing. Add government funding to the mix, and everything is up in the air. Lockheed's F-35 project is another example of a disaster, but of the financial sort instead. If funded by another private company, rather than the government, this project would have been shut down and Lockheed would have already been sued into bankruptcy. Instead, Lockheed continues to be paid billions, while their treasonous corporation holds our national security hostage. Note: All content in this comment is my opinion only. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
    - wiz21c 11y ago
      Now let's talk about asbetos and tobacco if you please. c'mon... your glasses are so rosy it's not even funny.
    - jayvanguard 11y ago
PythonicAlpha 11y ago
This alone is a strike against humanity: Now local patent laws that are widely criticized are even protected by international contracts (and thus have to be implemented by all signers -- and can not be changed, even the US can not change it's laws or regulations, when the top courts want to change patent ability regulations, they can't.). Is this about "free trade" or about profit-maximizing and guaranteeing for some big corporations?
- cryoshon 11y ago
  The latter, of course. Novartis and other pharma giants are heavily behind the TPP because it would send their profits through the roof relative to currently.
  - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
    That is, IMHO, just the opposite of a "free market". "Chained market" fits it better.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Also, the drug market and ISP market in the US are explicitly exempt from the free market and ISDS policy – meaning, in the US, you can still have monopolies, but in the rest of the world, protectionism becomes impossible. Very dangerous, and sounds more like "Empire – Colonies" than "Equal partners in trade"
      - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
        That is exactly the impression I got from the TTIP negotiations. The EU "partners" where supposed to sacrifice any of their positions, but the US (and US-corporation-) side always insisted in theirs. Unbelievable, that the EU does really accept all this! Only explanation: Those politicians are already bought.
        kuschku 11y ago
akavel 11y ago
Re: "I wonder if someone could take advantage of this" I believe that microorganisms patentability would indeed introduce a whole lot of problems for any human being. Starting with what's apparently already happening with plant patents -- see e.g. the story at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7798919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7798919
mcv 11y ago
But what about prior art? I understand newly created microorganisms being patentable, but how can you patent something that was already there?
- InfiniteEntropy 11y ago
  With lobbyists?
- valarauca1 11y ago
  Entire sections of the Human Genome are patented, so unlikely.
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    What does that mean? If I have a child with part of that patented code, the "patent owner" could legally extract the DNA?
    - damurdock 11y ago
      Human Genome patents are no longer recognized in the US[0], but my understanding is that they were used to protect genetic tests and treatments. For example, Myriad Genomics held patents against the BRCA genes (which can indicate breast cancer risk) which they used to prevent competitors from creating BRCA-based panels. [0]: https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-gene-patents-allows-patenting-synthetic-dna https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/us-supreme-court...
  - damurdock 11y ago
    Human Genome patents are no longer recognized in the United States of America. https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-gene-patents-allows-patenting-synthetic-dna https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/us-supreme-court...
jforman 11y ago
Probably more important than probiotics are patents for biologically engineered bacteria, like those made by Ginkgo Bioworks. A lot of work goes into engineering bugs to execute specific chemical synthesis pathways, and it's trivial to reverse engineer.
lyschoening 11y ago
Wild-type micro-organisms are not currently patentable, while genetically engineered ones already are. And 18.37.2 requires a new use, method or process involving any "known products", so it would be the use not the organism that is patentable.

aroch 11y ago

I think the spirit of this to allow for drastically modified yeast that produce, say, anti-cancer drug X to be patented. To make the biological equivalent of an industrial methods patent. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to protect your IP even though significant effort has gone into creating a chimeric yeast, because its just a collection of natural products (natural product's are currently not patentable). Still, seems a little odd / slippery slope-y to me. On the one hand, I understand and, to some extent, agree with the need to protect / profit off what you've developed. On the otherhand, USPTO is pretty bad at biological patent screening and I can see a huge landrush to patent bacteria for no good reason. (Full disclosure, I am in the process of patenting a modified natural product made by a bacteria)

david-given 11y ago
I've never understood why people patent organisms. That's not an ethical thing --- I understand why people want IP protection. It just seems like the wrong mechanism. Isn't the goal of restricting copying of your engineered organism better suited to the copyright system, rather than the patent system? Patents are for processes, right? But an organism is a thing, not a process. Isn't making an illegal copy of that thing a copyright violation?
- aroch 11y ago
  Patenting an organism that you've tweaked, tuned and bent to your will is, in the end, no different than patenting a unique alloying mix or manufacturing machine. They aren't patenting the organism per se, they're patenting the processes they've developed that make use of the organisms as the scaffold/factory. In the case I outlined previously of a yeast making a drug, you would want the patent on the cellular machinery that you've built to make the drug, which is the process.
  - avar 11y ago
    No, they're patenting the organism, or the end result. If you come up with an entirely different process to tweak the same organism by happenstance it's still covered by the patent. This is pretty much the definition of how patents differ from copyright law, if I word-for-word write come up with the same work as you and I can prove that I didn't copy yours, it's not covered by copyright law. With patents it doesn't matter that I came up with it on my own, you own the rights to the end result.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Exactly. It's why we tried to fight that crap back when they first tried it.
    - aroch 11y ago
      I'm not so sure, how is the end result any different than patenting a better manufacturing technique? That happens all the time in the macro-world. Again, I'm not sure how I feel on whether it should be patentable or not. But, at least as I understand it, their intent is protection for something they've spent millions/billions developing -- no different than the process patents we have now.
bcabs 11y ago
> the need to protect / profit off what you've developed. first mistake.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bryanlarsen 11y ago
How many of these are the government's fault? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Industrial_disasters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disaster...
- debacle 11y ago
  I'd argue that most of them are the government's fault, but in favor of more regulation (and bigger teeth), not less.
- mangeletti 11y ago
  The very first (more deaths than all the rest combined) one in the list (Bhopal disaster[1])... "Government-controlled banks and the Indian public holding a 49.1 percent stake." The government and public quite literally owned half of Union Carbide company at the time of the disaster. Fault can't really get more directly placed than that. The hopes of private industry are that an entirely private corporation, in order to protect its brand's value, needs to avoid this sort of thing. Add government funding to the mix, and everything is up in the air. Lockheed's F-35 project is another example of a disaster, but of the financial sort instead. If funded by another private company, rather than the government, this project would have been shut down and Lockheed would have already been sued into bankruptcy. Instead, Lockheed continues to be paid billions, while their treasonous corporation holds our national security hostage. Note: All content in this comment is my opinion only. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
  - wiz21c 11y ago
    Now let's talk about asbetos and tobacco if you please. c'mon... your glasses are so rosy it's not even funny.
  - jayvanguard 11y ago

PythonicAlpha 11y ago

This alone is a strike against humanity: Now local patent laws that are widely criticized are even protected by international contracts (and thus have to be implemented by all signers -- and can not be changed, even the US can not change it's laws or regulations, when the top courts want to change patent ability regulations, they can't.). Is this about "free trade" or about profit-maximizing and guaranteeing for some big corporations?

cryoshon 11y ago
The latter, of course. Novartis and other pharma giants are heavily behind the TPP because it would send their profits through the roof relative to currently.
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  That is, IMHO, just the opposite of a "free market". "Chained market" fits it better.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Also, the drug market and ISP market in the US are explicitly exempt from the free market and ISDS policy – meaning, in the US, you can still have monopolies, but in the rest of the world, protectionism becomes impossible. Very dangerous, and sounds more like "Empire – Colonies" than "Equal partners in trade"
    - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
      That is exactly the impression I got from the TTIP negotiations. The EU "partners" where supposed to sacrifice any of their positions, but the US (and US-corporation-) side always insisted in theirs. Unbelievable, that the EU does really accept all this! Only explanation: Those politicians are already bought.
      - kuschku 11y ago

akavel 11y ago

Re: "I wonder if someone could take advantage of this" I believe that microorganisms patentability would indeed introduce a whole lot of problems for any human being. Starting with what's apparently already happening with plant patents -- see e.g. the story at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7798919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7798919

mcv 11y ago

But what about prior art? I understand newly created microorganisms being patentable, but how can you patent something that was already there?

InfiniteEntropy 11y ago
With lobbyists?
valarauca1 11y ago
Entire sections of the Human Genome are patented, so unlikely.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  What does that mean? If I have a child with part of that patented code, the "patent owner" could legally extract the DNA?
  - damurdock 11y ago
    Human Genome patents are no longer recognized in the US[0], but my understanding is that they were used to protect genetic tests and treatments. For example, Myriad Genomics held patents against the BRCA genes (which can indicate breast cancer risk) which they used to prevent competitors from creating BRCA-based panels. [0]: https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-gene-patents-allows-patenting-synthetic-dna https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/us-supreme-court...
- damurdock 11y ago
  Human Genome patents are no longer recognized in the United States of America. https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-gene-patents-allows-patenting-synthetic-dna https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/us-supreme-court...

jforman 11y ago

Probably more important than probiotics are patents for biologically engineered bacteria, like those made by Ginkgo Bioworks. A lot of work goes into engineering bugs to execute specific chemical synthesis pathways, and it's trivial to reverse engineer.

lyschoening 11y ago

Wild-type micro-organisms are not currently patentable, while genetically engineered ones already are. And 18.37.2 requires a new use, method or process involving any "known products", so it would be the use not the organism that is patentable.