4 ms·

Finally. I'm not even happy, simply relieved. It's taken years and years to begin affirming what should you obvious: you shouldn't be allowed to patent nature.

Finally. I'm not even happy, simply relieved. It's taken years and years to begin affirming what should you obvious: you shouldn't be allowed to patent nature. It boggles the mind how it came to this, how we arrived at the notion that someone could patent nature. Software patents are bad enough, whereas patents on biological aspects are much more dangerous. Take gene patents--these patents set biology back years every time someone receives one.

alexqgb 15y ago
According to the Prometheus spokesperson “Without the availability of patent protection, future health care will suffer as companies may opt out of new research and development.” This assumption is based on the demonstrably wrong assumption that the ONLY motivating factor driving medical development is predatory rent-seeking of the most odious kind. Were it not for this, the thinking goes, people would all just suffer and die in silence. People whose lives are seriously impacted by any condition have a serious motivation to pool resources in an effort to find a cure. To date, the transaction costs have been prohibitive, giving the predatory motivation more power. But there's no reason why the Kickstarter model can't be adapted to this problem - especially when researchers are bolstered by fundamental research done at the NIH. An additional source of funding could come from health insurance companies, who back promising projects because it lowers their costs. We need to demolish the idea that patents are the one and only pathway to medical advance. In some ways, this is more important that going after software patents, since any time patent reform comes up, drug patents get wheeled out as the prime example of "good" patents. They're deployed like a rhetorical third rail, and a useful way to shut down any conversation about patent reform in general.
- orangecat 15y ago
  Exactly. The artificial scarcity imposed by patents is a hack to avoid the tragedy of the commons, but we should be able to do better. I donate to SENS for both altruistic and selfish reasons: if left unchecked aging will severely impact everyone's quality of life, and in particular mine.

alexqgb 15y ago

According to the Prometheus spokesperson “Without the availability of patent protection, future health care will suffer as companies may opt out of new research and development.” This assumption is based on the demonstrably wrong assumption that the ONLY motivating factor driving medical development is predatory rent-seeking of the most odious kind. Were it not for this, the thinking goes, people would all just suffer and die in silence. People whose lives are seriously impacted by any condition have a serious motivation to pool resources in an effort to find a cure. To date, the transaction costs have been prohibitive, giving the predatory motivation more power. But there's no reason why the Kickstarter model can't be adapted to this problem - especially when researchers are bolstered by fundamental research done at the NIH. An additional source of funding could come from health insurance companies, who back promising projects because it lowers their costs. We need to demolish the idea that patents are the one and only pathway to medical advance. In some ways, this is more important that going after software patents, since any time patent reform comes up, drug patents get wheeled out as the prime example of "good" patents. They're deployed like a rhetorical third rail, and a useful way to shut down any conversation about patent reform in general.

orangecat 15y ago
Exactly. The artificial scarcity imposed by patents is a hack to avoid the tragedy of the commons, but we should be able to do better. I donate to SENS for both altruistic and selfish reasons: if left unchecked aging will severely impact everyone's quality of life, and in particular mine.