6 ms·

I am increasingly of the opinion that patents simply aren't worth the trouble they cause. I get that you need them for the lone inventor in their shed in the g

I am increasingly of the opinion that patents simply aren't worth the trouble they cause. I get that you need them for the lone inventor in their shed in the garden, but they never seem to be the ones who own all the patents.

phryk 13y ago
Indeed. It's pretty obvious that most patents are owned by corporations who paid someone to do the work and not by the inventors themselves. My personal assessment is that in contemporary times, patents only slow down progress and fill the pockets of already-rich people. That said, I am wary of anything environmentalist since those people often seem to not have done even the most minute amount of research on their topics and then continue to spread misinformation or plain lies (see the anti-GMO people for instance). The mentioned site for example, seems to imply that plant/animal patents will diminish biodiversity ("The organisations behind No Patents On Seeds are especially concerned about […] biodiversity."). I have no clue how granting patents on plants and animals is supposed to diminish biodiversity. Won't new plants and animals increase biodiversity? I mean yes, without the patents you could crossbreed and remix GM and other plants more freely which would boost the increase even further, but even a small increase is still pretty much the opposite of a decrease and dismantles the argument. And before someone gets into cross-pollination and other ways of patented species overtaking 'natural' species habitats: For that to happen you need the GM species to be vastly better at reproducing. The chances of this happening without it being a goal of the development (which it usually isn't, since they want you to buy shit again and again…) are pretty small. As far as I know most GM organisms are even made sterile. And while the risk of GM organisms "taking over the world" is relatively slim, naturally occuring species do this kind of stuff right this moment. The so-called 'Killer bees', some species of fish and crustaceans, red fire ants. et cetera, et cetera. Many people have this sense of nature being balanced and that if we don't touch it, it'll all be alright ("Man made everything bad!", the environmentalist version of original sin). This is complete and utter bullshit, just doesn't work that way. Ecosystems are not static, they are extremely dynamic and never balanced.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  > Won't new plants and animals increase biodiversity? The issue here isn't that - new plants and animals may be good or bad, but that's an environmental argument. My concern is allowing people to patent biochemistry/DNA sequences, which is clearly bad. EU law doesn't allow software patents, perhaps it's time to define DNA as a computer program, thus making it illegal to patent it.
  - jrkelly 13y ago
    Well computer programs are protectable by copyright. I work in this field (at a startup) and I think it may be better if we were allowed to protect engineered DNA sequences with copyright as you suggest. Would be less expensive and faster than patents. There is actually a company looking to take this idea to court: http://www.nature.com/news/bioengineers-look-beyond-patents-1.13320 http://www.nature.com/news/bioengineers-look-beyond-patents-... "Last year, the company petitioned for US copyright protection of the DNA sequence for a fluorescent green protein, without success, but has launched an appeal. Its plan, says Christopher Holman, a law professor at the University of Missouri–Kansas City who is working with DNA2.0, is to pursue the appeal until the issue is heard in court." It took a similar case to make software copyrightable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_in_t...
    - phryk 13y ago
      I think it may be better if we were allowed to protect engineered DNA sequences with copyright as you suggest. Aren't patents at least not applicable to non-commercial uses? Using copyright seems even worse. I'm against any legal protection of any DNA sequence. This seems like the sort of thing that doesn't just have the potential to greatly stifle innovation but also to take on a very dystopian shape…
      - jrkelly 13y ago
        >This seems like the sort of thing that doesn't just have >the potential to greatly stifle innovation Could you be more specific? I'm not sure how we'd be able to do our business (years of work to develop an engineered microbe) if someone could just take it when we're done. Maybe we could keep it as trade secret and let no one else see it, but that's probably even worse long term for innovation. I'm for a balanced approach to IP, but total removal of IP would basically prevent any real innovation in biotech with the tech of today. No one would do the original development, it's just way too expensive.
belorn 13y ago
I fully agree. While I can see that the original intention with patents are good, the current implementation is beyond salvaging. Mostly this comes from the patent system being made from 19th century administrative standards. Its basically the oldest type of administrative process that hasn't been fundamentally updated in the last 200 years, and it shows. *See more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5563289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5563289

phryk 13y ago

Indeed. It's pretty obvious that most patents are owned by corporations who paid someone to do the work and not by the inventors themselves. My personal assessment is that in contemporary times, patents only slow down progress and fill the pockets of already-rich people. That said, I am wary of anything environmentalist since those people often seem to not have done even the most minute amount of research on their topics and then continue to spread misinformation or plain lies (see the anti-GMO people for instance). The mentioned site for example, seems to imply that plant/animal patents will diminish biodiversity ("The organisations behind No Patents On Seeds are especially concerned about […] biodiversity."). I have no clue how granting patents on plants and animals is supposed to diminish biodiversity. Won't new plants and animals increase biodiversity? I mean yes, without the patents you could crossbreed and remix GM and other plants more freely which would boost the increase even further, but even a small increase is still pretty much the opposite of a decrease and dismantles the argument. And before someone gets into cross-pollination and other ways of patented species overtaking 'natural' species habitats: For that to happen you need the GM species to be vastly better at reproducing. The chances of this happening without it being a goal of the development (which it usually isn't, since they want you to buy shit again and again…) are pretty small. As far as I know most GM organisms are even made sterile. And while the risk of GM organisms "taking over the world" is relatively slim, naturally occuring species do this kind of stuff right this moment. The so-called 'Killer bees', some species of fish and crustaceans, red fire ants. et cetera, et cetera. Many people have this sense of nature being balanced and that if we don't touch it, it'll all be alright ("Man made everything bad!", the environmentalist version of original sin). This is complete and utter bullshit, just doesn't work that way. Ecosystems are not static, they are extremely dynamic and never balanced.

tehwalrus 13y ago
> Won't new plants and animals increase biodiversity? The issue here isn't that - new plants and animals may be good or bad, but that's an environmental argument. My concern is allowing people to patent biochemistry/DNA sequences, which is clearly bad. EU law doesn't allow software patents, perhaps it's time to define DNA as a computer program, thus making it illegal to patent it.
- jrkelly 13y ago
  Well computer programs are protectable by copyright. I work in this field (at a startup) and I think it may be better if we were allowed to protect engineered DNA sequences with copyright as you suggest. Would be less expensive and faster than patents. There is actually a company looking to take this idea to court: http://www.nature.com/news/bioengineers-look-beyond-patents-1.13320 http://www.nature.com/news/bioengineers-look-beyond-patents-... "Last year, the company petitioned for US copyright protection of the DNA sequence for a fluorescent green protein, without success, but has launched an appeal. Its plan, says Christopher Holman, a law professor at the University of Missouri–Kansas City who is working with DNA2.0, is to pursue the appeal until the issue is heard in court." It took a similar case to make software copyrightable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_in_t...
  - phryk 13y ago
    I think it may be better if we were allowed to protect engineered DNA sequences with copyright as you suggest. Aren't patents at least not applicable to non-commercial uses? Using copyright seems even worse. I'm against any legal protection of any DNA sequence. This seems like the sort of thing that doesn't just have the potential to greatly stifle innovation but also to take on a very dystopian shape…
    - jrkelly 13y ago
      >This seems like the sort of thing that doesn't just have >the potential to greatly stifle innovation Could you be more specific? I'm not sure how we'd be able to do our business (years of work to develop an engineered microbe) if someone could just take it when we're done. Maybe we could keep it as trade secret and let no one else see it, but that's probably even worse long term for innovation. I'm for a balanced approach to IP, but total removal of IP would basically prevent any real innovation in biotech with the tech of today. No one would do the original development, it's just way too expensive.

belorn 13y ago

I fully agree. While I can see that the original intention with patents are good, the current implementation is beyond salvaging. Mostly this comes from the patent system being made from 19th century administrative standards. Its basically the oldest type of administrative process that hasn't been fundamentally updated in the last 200 years, and it shows. *See more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5563289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5563289