3 ms·

It's true that developing a pharmaceutical is an expensive process, but on the other hand the compounds used are often naturally occurring. In that sense, it se

by lutorm 17y ago

It's true that developing a pharmaceutical is an expensive process, but on the other hand the compounds used are often naturally occurring. In that sense, it seems to me that these are instances of "discovery" and not "invention", just like genome patents in general. I might be fine with restricting the right for others to sell pharmaceuticals based on the same compound for the same purpose, but certainly not to bar general research into what other effects it may have.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
>I might be fine with restricting the right for others to sell pharmaceuticals based on the same compound for the same purpose, but certainly not to bar general research into what other effects it may have. There is a general exclusion of the monopoly right over that of the right to continue scientific research. One could find novel uses, but unless the patents have been poorly drafted it would be impossible to exploit them - you're simply finding more reasons for people to buy your competitors drug.
anamax 17y ago
> I might be fine with restricting the right for others to sell pharmaceuticals based on the same compound for the same purpose, but certainly not to bar general research into what other effects it may have. Umm, that's exactly what current patent law does. The recent denial of a "gene patent" affirmed that. The Viagra-for-ED patent doesn't keep me from patenting the use of the exact same compound as a floor wax.
- flipbrad 17y ago
  Ouch, what a mishmash of the law goin' on here. ACLU v myriad wasn't about patentable second use of patented products, nor was it about obviousness over the state of the art (the natural world is not considered to be in the state of the art): it was about novelty - the natural DNA in your cells was, in the judge's view, still the same substance (even in cDNA form and artificially synthesised) as the chemical in Myriad's 'invention' (since for him, function was crucial not form - its form might be altered and origin be synthetic, its function is the same - to carry information - and that information is the same).
  - anamax 17y ago
    > it was about novelty - the natural DNA in your cells was, in the judge's view Except that the judge said that it wasn't. The judge said that they can't patent discovering a gene - they can only patent doing something new with or to said gene. That's why the applicants wrote the claim the way that they did - they claimed suppression of said gene to accomplish something. The problem with that claim is that they didn't invent a means of suppression. They assumed one, hence they didn't actually have an invention, which is what the judge actually wrote.

by lutorm 17y ago

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

>I might be fine with restricting the right for others to sell pharmaceuticals based on the same compound for the same purpose, but certainly not to bar general research into what other effects it may have. There is a general exclusion of the monopoly right over that of the right to continue scientific research. One could find novel uses, but unless the patents have been poorly drafted it would be impossible to exploit them - you're simply finding more reasons for people to buy your competitors drug.

anamax 17y ago

> I might be fine with restricting the right for others to sell pharmaceuticals based on the same compound for the same purpose, but certainly not to bar general research into what other effects it may have. Umm, that's exactly what current patent law does. The recent denial of a "gene patent" affirmed that. The Viagra-for-ED patent doesn't keep me from patenting the use of the exact same compound as a floor wax.

flipbrad 17y ago
Ouch, what a mishmash of the law goin' on here. ACLU v myriad wasn't about patentable second use of patented products, nor was it about obviousness over the state of the art (the natural world is not considered to be in the state of the art): it was about novelty - the natural DNA in your cells was, in the judge's view, still the same substance (even in cDNA form and artificially synthesised) as the chemical in Myriad's 'invention' (since for him, function was crucial not form - its form might be altered and origin be synthetic, its function is the same - to carry information - and that information is the same).
- anamax 17y ago
  > it was about novelty - the natural DNA in your cells was, in the judge's view Except that the judge said that it wasn't. The judge said that they can't patent discovering a gene - they can only patent doing something new with or to said gene. That's why the applicants wrote the claim the way that they did - they claimed suppression of said gene to accomplish something. The problem with that claim is that they didn't invent a means of suppression. They assumed one, hence they didn't actually have an invention, which is what the judge actually wrote.