3 ms·

But in that case, they don't sell the bacteria, do they? (that would be foolish) They sell the insulin it produces. You cannot take the insulin and make more in

But in that case, they don't sell the bacteria, do they? (that would be foolish) They sell the insulin it produces. You cannot take the insulin and make more insulin with it, so no-one can take the product they bought and "let nature take its course" and end up with more. However, if someone were to use the same process they used for gene insertion (which is more likely to be an invention than a gene they simply discovered), they may have grounds to sue.

jrkelly 14y ago
However, if someone were to use the same process they used for gene insertion (which is more likely to be an invention than a gene they simply discovered), they may have grounds to sue. The process for gene insertion for insulin was the Herbert/Boyer recombinant DNA patent that was widely licensed by Stanford: http://www.genome.duke.edu/centers/cpg/case-histories/seminal-genomic-technologies/cohen-boyer/ http://www.genome.duke.edu/centers/cpg/case-histories/semina... If I had to pick Genentech protecting their drug via a patent on an E.coli bacteria containing human insulin gene vs. the method to move the gene I'd take the former for sure. The method was much more broadly useful.
javajosh 14y ago
This is an excellent point - if Monsanto wants to control second-generation seed, then they should become farmers.
- rayiner 14y ago
  This is the road a strident anti-patent stance leads you down. You end up arguing that capital intensive R&D companies should vertically integrate and get into the business of selling end-user products, because that's the way to protect R&D investment without patent protection. But is that a good solution (ideology aside)? Doesn't that hinder useful things like specialization and division of labor? Isn't it better for Monsanto to focus on genetics and farmers to focus on farming?
  - javajosh 14y ago
    If you make a special configuration of life, you should be ready and willing to deal with the consequence of selling that life. E.g. if I buy a purebred puppy from a breeder, does that breeder get to tell me not to breed my dog? No, they don't. And lo and behold, as if by magic, there is still financial incentive in selling specially bred dogs! Monsanto is just being greedy here, and the net impact on their profits will be minimal even if they lose. There will always be a market for them to sell engineered life "factory fresh" even if people use secondary generation of seed.

jrkelly 14y ago

However, if someone were to use the same process they used for gene insertion (which is more likely to be an invention than a gene they simply discovered), they may have grounds to sue. The process for gene insertion for insulin was the Herbert/Boyer recombinant DNA patent that was widely licensed by Stanford: http://www.genome.duke.edu/centers/cpg/case-histories/seminal-genomic-technologies/cohen-boyer/ http://www.genome.duke.edu/centers/cpg/case-histories/semina... If I had to pick Genentech protecting their drug via a patent on an E.coli bacteria containing human insulin gene vs. the method to move the gene I'd take the former for sure. The method was much more broadly useful.

javajosh 14y ago

This is an excellent point - if Monsanto wants to control second-generation seed, then they should become farmers.

rayiner 14y ago
This is the road a strident anti-patent stance leads you down. You end up arguing that capital intensive R&D companies should vertically integrate and get into the business of selling end-user products, because that's the way to protect R&D investment without patent protection. But is that a good solution (ideology aside)? Doesn't that hinder useful things like specialization and division of labor? Isn't it better for Monsanto to focus on genetics and farmers to focus on farming?
- javajosh 14y ago
  If you make a special configuration of life, you should be ready and willing to deal with the consequence of selling that life. E.g. if I buy a purebred puppy from a breeder, does that breeder get to tell me not to breed my dog? No, they don't. And lo and behold, as if by magic, there is still financial incentive in selling specially bred dogs! Monsanto is just being greedy here, and the net impact on their profits will be minimal even if they lose. There will always be a market for them to sell engineered life "factory fresh" even if people use secondary generation of seed.