Trademarked Genes
A lawsuit is in process against the patent holders of genes that are known to detect early signs of breast and ovarian cancer. A federal judge allowed a lawsuit to proceed against the Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics that was awarded exclusive rights to human genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, known to detect early signs of breast and ovarian cancer.
The lawsuit, which is the first of its kind, claims that the patents violate free speech by restricting research. According to the dozens of patients and researchers, the genes cannot be patented because they exist as naturally occurring products of nature. Myriad did not invent or create anything new, they pinpointed information that was apart of the genetic code as it exists within the natural population. The question therefore arises of how a corporate entity can be allowed to own, and brand, a segment of life?
In Myriad's defense, they argued that there was no legal standing for the lawsuit nor any basis for the claims against their patents that give them a stranglehold monopoly on predictive testing for breast and ovarian cancer. Judge Robert W. Sweet disagrees, noting that the plaintiff's claims are completely sound in declaring that Myriad's "ownership rights over products of nature, laws of nature, natural phenomena, abstract ideas and basic human knowledge and thought [are] in violation of the First Amendment's protections over freedom of thought," allowing the lawsuit to continue.
Meanwhile, "women who fear they may be at increased risk are barred from having anyone look at their BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes or interpret them except for the patent holder, which charges about $3,000 per test," and Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City proves to be another example of big-business, and pharmaceuticals, attempt, and success, at manipulating and profiting from the lives of billions.
Image: "DNA" by Metalhead__1993 on Photobucket courtesy of Creative Commons Licensing.
Tweet- 12-23-09
- Chris Kaplan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Patents, in general, are illegitimate
Patents are necessary
There's no solid evidence...
...to indicate that patents have a net economic benefit. It is true that, under currently existing regulatory conditions, abolishing patents in the pharmaceutical industry would not be wise. However, given proper reform, there is no reason to assume that an absence of patents would be of detriment to pharmaceutical innovations. For a more robust explanation, see here: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf
Of course you can patent "ideas." That's what patents are - legally enforceable declarations of ownership over ideas. Yes, there is criteria for obtaining a patent, but whether it be a patent on an iPod (i.e. ownership of the idea(s) on how something looks, functions, and is manufactured) or a patent on a FedEx shipping database (i.e. ownership of the idea(s) on how to track, manage, and store certain information), the fact is that it's a claim of exclusive control over the utilization of an idea for commercial purposes.
Ideas are not scarce resources. Any number of people can utilize the same idea, simultaneously, for identical or alternate purposes (given the physical resources necessary for utilization are available). My use of a particular design to construct a step-ladder does not prevent you from using the same design to construct a step-ladder. A house, on the other hand, is a scarce resource. My use of a particular house may prevent you from using that same house in the way you'd like.
Patents offer monopolies on ideas, legally enabling the patent-holders to prevent others from utilizing those ideas for certain purposes in the absence of their express consent. They are a tool loved by those who seek to suppress market competition, and they are unethical in practice. Suppose I discover a great new formula for a glue. Now, suppose you get wind of my new formula, or, better yet, suppose you also discover this great new formula and decide to start manufacturing a glue based on it. How can it possibly be considered ethical for me to threaten you with violence to stop manufacturing your glue, because you're using the same idea as me?
Ideas
Cannot be patented. You make some interesting points, but legally you cannot patent ideas. You may be defining ideas in a different way, but one must reduce an invention to practice, and this, legally is not an idea.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/inventing/patent-ideas/
If you need more cites, I will provide them.
Trivial
Don't agree
Listen to yourself...
Why should someone be able to forceably prevent others from using or modifying a good idea with their own property?
Arbitrary copying, use, distribution, and modification of published information does not alter the original. Nor does it, all else being equal, infringe upon the IP-holder's ability to utilize said published information in whatever way he/she chooses. In other words, doing something with the second copy does not prevent anything from being done with the first copy (again, ceretis peribus).
Suppose you are witness to how a battery operates, and memorize its structure and functionality. By memorization, you are storing the information in the brain. Certainly, if you are to remain a free and autonomous individual, the battery company does not hold ownership to your brain. Of course, as you pointed out, IP does not extend ownership to ideas but to the expressions of those ideas. But now, suppose you utilize your brain (which the information has now become a part of), to make a "hard copy" of that information. You use your own pen, ink, and paper, or computer, to write/type that information in linguistic form. Next, you use the "hard copy" as a guide to manufacture either the same or a modified battery with your own copper and materials. In effect, you have produced a good with your own mind and property. Assuming you were under no contractual obligations from the IP-holders, the fact that you observed phenomena (information) produced by others to create the battery does not ethically entitle them to the abridgement of your freedom to peacefully do what you wish with your property, whether that be to publish, sell, adapt, or otherwise. You have stolen nothing. You have adopted an idea and applied it with your own means.
'Intellectual Property' is not legitimate property, nor is it ethical. It is an institutionalized violation of legitimate property by means of granting state-enforced monopolies at the solicitation of market incumbents to inhibit competition. IP raises prices, stagnates industry, and rewards special interests at consumer expense. It is a relic of the old-world, mercantilist privilege of the 16th century.
"... the patent monopoly ... consists in protecting inventors ... against competition for a period long enough to extort from the people a reward enormously in excess of the labor measure of their services, — in other words, in giving certain people a right of property for a term of years in laws and facts of Nature, and the power to exact tribute from others for the use of this natural wealth, which should be open to all." (Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, By a Man Too Busy to Write One: A Fragmentary Exposition of Philosophical Anarchism (New York: Tucker, 1893), p. 13.)
If you are concerned with the economic argument regarding IP, I encourage you to read the entire book corresponding to the chapter on pharamceutical IP that I previously linked. You can read the whole book for free in pdf, by clicking here. I am confident that it will address most, if not all, of your questions about the economic importance of IP.
Not legitimate?
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The key is "limited time". After the expiration of 20 years from filing of the invention, the public is free to use it. The quote you provided from 1893 is not on point. Laws of nature and articles naturally occurring are not patentable under 35 USC 101. The patent grant was determined to provide a balance of rewards for the innovator and the needs of the public. Intellectual property rights are as legitimate as any other property rights if you take the constitution to be legitimate.
Indeed
I am aware of what the law states, however I am not of the persuasion that something becomes morally legitimate because it becomes Law. The fact that some people write something down and direct others to use force against those who do not abide by it, does not make what is written ethical.
Whether for a limited time or not, IP is ethically unjustifiable. Furthermore, if truly property, why should there be a time limit? Surely the property title to an individual's food, clothing, house, etc. does not expire so long as the individual wishes to retain it.
In the quote I provided, when speaking of "Nature," the author is implying Intellectual Property as a universal - a conceptual form abstractly identified in other people's minds and property over which the IP-holder has no morally legitimate sovereignty. Think of it... What if Einstein had held IP on his "General" and "Special" theories of relativity? Or what if Newton had held IP on calculus? Would others have had to pay royalties to them when applying these ideas? Of course, you'd argue that IP protects inventions, not discoveries; implementations or expressions of ideas, not ideas themselves. However, this is a false distinction. Natural laws can be defined generally or more specifically, simply or complexly; if it is a natural law that highly energized electrons release photons, it is no less a natural law that a specific arrangement of electrons, in specific combination with other quantities and arrangements of materials, that energizes electrons in a specific way, produces a particular lightbulb.
Also, I do not consider the Constitution to be a document that articulates moral legitimacy. I derive property rights on the basis of philosophy, not on the authoritative proclamations of others.
time limit on property
Leases on cars and apartments? I think those are property interests for a limited time.
"Natural Laws" has a well defined meaning in the law and science. Why would anyone bother to make a better light bulb , including investment in capital costs, if they could not make a profit for a limited time?
Ever see those bootleg movies on the street? Do you think that is OK as well? We would not have any "Avatars" if your view of IP were implemented. Well, maybe that's a good thing.
...
No. Leases on cars and apartments are not property interests for a limited time. The leaser maintains ownership over the good (car, apartment), but makes a voluntary agreement with the renter to allow him/her conditional use of the good for a period of time. The renter has contracted to obtain and relinquish his/her use of the good to the leaser upon previously specified conditions.
You are assuming that IP is the only way for innovations to be profit-worthy or to recoup investment spending. That is simply not true. Again, if you're interested in the economic case against IP, you should read the book I posted a link to. It's pretty insightful.
I do think it is wrong for people to bootleg movies, yes. They are violating the terms and conditions upon which they are being sold a theater ticket (to not videotape the movie being screened). In other words, they have defrauded the filmmakers and theater operators and their actions ought to be prosecutable by those they defrauded. However, I can tell you that bootlegs pose no threat to movies like Avatar. I can assure you that most people don't refrain from purchasing bootlegged movies because it's illegal, but rather because the quality is generally poor and they'd rather pay the extra money to watch the movie in high-quality, big picture and sound at the theater. The people who buy bootlegs usually had no desire for seeing the movie in the theater in the first place. The availability of the bootleg isn't what deterred them from seeing the movie in the theater.
property interest
Sorry?
Genomic and Personalized Medicine