4 ms·

Two important considerations: 1. This link is to the as-filed application. The recited claims are not what ultimately issued. Linking to the application rather

by iplaw 10y ago

Two important considerations: 1. This link is to the as-filed application. The recited claims are not what ultimately issued. Linking to the application rather than the granted patent is dubious. https://www.google.com/patents/US9386790 https://www.google.com/patents/US9386790 2. A patent practitioner will utilize method claims in order to apply something known in the art, such as general fasting, in a new and novel manner. This does NOT cover plain-ole fasting. You can fast without violating this patent. What you cannot do without a license to the patent is perform the method in its entirety. The independent claim recites: 1. A method of treating a symptom of diabetes, the method comprising: identifying a subject exhibiting symptoms caused by pancreatic beta cell destruction, the subject having a normal caloric intake; and administering multiple cycles of a diet protocol to the subject wherein a fasting mimicking diet is provided for a first time period and a re-feeding diet is provided for a second time period, the fasting mimicking diet providing less than about 50% of the normal caloric intake of the subject with both protein restriction and sugar restriction and the re-feeding diet providing 60-100 percent of the normal caloric intake of the subject, depending on a need to lose weight wherein the first time period is from 2 days to 6 days and the second time period is from 7 days to 85 days. The take-aways form the claim language are: A. This is a method of treating a symptom of diabetes. In order to infringe, you must be treating diabetes by performing the method. B. You must actively identify a subject exhibiting symptoms caused by pancreatic beta cell destruction, and the subject must have a normal caloric intake. If you are an individual who is fasting to treat your diabetes, you don't infringe by performing this method. You did not identify a subject exhibiting symptoms caused by pancreatic beta cell destruction. You are merely fasting. C. You must administer multiple cycles of this fasting and refeeding, within the exact caloric-intake ranges required by the claim, and within the exact time frame required by the claim. TL;DR: It's toothless for all except treatment centers which diagnose and identify this "subject exhibiting symptoms caused by pancreatic beta cell destruction" which could potentially prescribe this very specific dietary regime to "treat a symptom of diabetes."

DrScump 10y ago
"Linking to the application rather than the granted patent is spreading misinformation and is click-bait" This strikes me as unduly harsh for an honest mistake at worst. Updated information is always preferable, but I have a hard time seeing any bad intent in the original comment.
hayavuk 10y ago
> you must be treating diabetes by performing the method Does it not say "administer"?
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
I appreciate your informative explanation. I think it's important that we have the facts when discussing this. I will say that you've sort of missed what I think is the important part: We as a society have decided that it's acceptable to legally bar medical practitioners from performing life saving treatment of sick individuals. The only explanations I've heard for why that might not be crazy has unfortunately been simple and hand-wavey. Specifically I've heard that patents protect innovators, and the idea is that protecting innovators by intentionally granting them a limited monopoly on the use of their invention will create a society more likely to produce new innovations. The idea is that despite clear negatives, patents offer a net benefit to society. The problem is I can easily imagine scenarios for either side of that argument, but I've never heard a comprehensive argument in favor of the current way of doing things. I also can't help but notice that patents often protect the establishment by granting the wealthy more monopoly power. Given that the legal system is in many ways captured by the wealthy establishment, I question whether the patent system continues to exist because it is truly beneficial to all or because it benefits the elite that also extert significant power over the legal system. If the latter were true, then it could also be said that patents are another example of the establishment hurting the masses for their own gain. And in this case (again, as you pointed out the practical effect of this example may be small), the patent system is creating a risky legal situation for those who would try to provide medical care for sick members of our society. As an anecdote, 3D printers were $30k until several major patents expired. Then small companies formed and in less than 10 years we created excellent 3D printers that cost $329 (I just bought one of those). I can't help but wonder what the cumulative effect of artificial monopolies is on our society. Because it's invisible it's hard to calculate, but it's clear to me the effect is large. I'm open to any insight into these matters. My plan is to promote the voluntary open sourcing of engineered works, but I'd sure love to stop supporting the patent system in the first place (I think).
- bdowling 10y ago
  I think you've identified the key issue: "What patent policy is in the best interests of society?" In granting monopoly rights to inventors, we incentivize innovation and society gets the benefit of new and useful inventions that might not have otherwise occurred as soon. On the other hand, society pays a higher price than it would if anyone were allowed to copy those inventions and distribute the benefits in the most economically efficient way. There are various safeguards in the law that make this trade more appealing to the public. Since the monopoly rights are so strong (there is no "fair use", for example), there is a high level of scrutiny before granting them. And there are high standards that must be met ("subject-matter eligibility", "novelty", "non-obviousness", "definiteness", "enablement"). And even after a patent is granted, it is contestable (but, litigation is expensive). The big safeguard is that patents are limited to a term of 20 years (in the U.S.) and after that the invention is dedicated to the public. I am pretty sure that the 20 year term is non-ideal. For some types of inventions (e.g., those requiring only a small investment of time or money to innovate) society may be granting inventors too long of a term. For other types of inventions, the term may be too short (e.g., where an innovation required a huge amount of investment). As you pointed out, the effects on society are hard to calculate. Because the rules are "one size fits all", I am pretty sure we don't have an ideal system. However, I don't know if adding more rules would make the system better or worse. At least interested parties can petition for changes either through the courts or through the legislatures.

by iplaw 10y ago

DrScump 10y ago

"Linking to the application rather than the granted patent is spreading misinformation and is click-bait" This strikes me as unduly harsh for an honest mistake at worst. Updated information is always preferable, but I have a hard time seeing any bad intent in the original comment.

hayavuk 10y ago

> you must be treating diabetes by performing the method Does it not say "administer"?

TaylorAlexander 10y ago

I appreciate your informative explanation. I think it's important that we have the facts when discussing this. I will say that you've sort of missed what I think is the important part: We as a society have decided that it's acceptable to legally bar medical practitioners from performing life saving treatment of sick individuals. The only explanations I've heard for why that might not be crazy has unfortunately been simple and hand-wavey. Specifically I've heard that patents protect innovators, and the idea is that protecting innovators by intentionally granting them a limited monopoly on the use of their invention will create a society more likely to produce new innovations. The idea is that despite clear negatives, patents offer a net benefit to society. The problem is I can easily imagine scenarios for either side of that argument, but I've never heard a comprehensive argument in favor of the current way of doing things. I also can't help but notice that patents often protect the establishment by granting the wealthy more monopoly power. Given that the legal system is in many ways captured by the wealthy establishment, I question whether the patent system continues to exist because it is truly beneficial to all or because it benefits the elite that also extert significant power over the legal system. If the latter were true, then it could also be said that patents are another example of the establishment hurting the masses for their own gain. And in this case (again, as you pointed out the practical effect of this example may be small), the patent system is creating a risky legal situation for those who would try to provide medical care for sick members of our society. As an anecdote, 3D printers were $30k until several major patents expired. Then small companies formed and in less than 10 years we created excellent 3D printers that cost $329 (I just bought one of those). I can't help but wonder what the cumulative effect of artificial monopolies is on our society. Because it's invisible it's hard to calculate, but it's clear to me the effect is large. I'm open to any insight into these matters. My plan is to promote the voluntary open sourcing of engineered works, but I'd sure love to stop supporting the patent system in the first place (I think).

bdowling 10y ago
I think you've identified the key issue: "What patent policy is in the best interests of society?" In granting monopoly rights to inventors, we incentivize innovation and society gets the benefit of new and useful inventions that might not have otherwise occurred as soon. On the other hand, society pays a higher price than it would if anyone were allowed to copy those inventions and distribute the benefits in the most economically efficient way. There are various safeguards in the law that make this trade more appealing to the public. Since the monopoly rights are so strong (there is no "fair use", for example), there is a high level of scrutiny before granting them. And there are high standards that must be met ("subject-matter eligibility", "novelty", "non-obviousness", "definiteness", "enablement"). And even after a patent is granted, it is contestable (but, litigation is expensive). The big safeguard is that patents are limited to a term of 20 years (in the U.S.) and after that the invention is dedicated to the public. I am pretty sure that the 20 year term is non-ideal. For some types of inventions (e.g., those requiring only a small investment of time or money to innovate) society may be granting inventors too long of a term. For other types of inventions, the term may be too short (e.g., where an innovation required a huge amount of investment). As you pointed out, the effects on society are hard to calculate. Because the rules are "one size fits all", I am pretty sure we don't have an ideal system. However, I don't know if adding more rules would make the system better or worse. At least interested parties can petition for changes either through the courts or through the legislatures.