undefined | Better HN

0 pointstehwalrus12y ago0 comments

> 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.

0 comments

ronaldx12y ago

>My concern is allowing people to patent biochemistry/DNA sequences, which is clearly bad.

I was thinking about this earlier but I concluded that it was morally no different than any other form of patent - and modestly comparible to patents on new drugs (or software, indeed).

For example - the protection afforded by patents on new drugs is said to justify the amount spent by the pharmaceutical industry on R&D/drug discovery.

Why is the argument different for seeds/DNA sequences, or any other invention that benefits humanity, if it is?

Retric12y ago

The problem seed manufactures get to enforce useless patents. Step 1, patent junk DNA. Step 2, prevent farmers from using seed banks due to useless patent. Step 3, profit.

Net value to society... Nothing.

ronaldx12y ago

This argument is against patenting 'junk' DNA: but European and American patent law both require a patent to have industrial application and to be novel.

So, I find it unlikely that this situation should apply in practice (although it is worrying that it might apply). And, I don't find it an argument against patenting useful non-junk DNA.

Note: I'm probably on your side, at least in that I dislike implementation of patent law in general.

jrkelly12y 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-...

"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_t...

phryk12y 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…

jrkelly12y 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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

ronaldx12y ago

>My concern is allowing people to patent biochemistry/DNA sequences, which is clearly bad.

I was thinking about this earlier but I concluded that it was morally no different than any other form of patent - and modestly comparible to patents on new drugs (or software, indeed).

For example - the protection afforded by patents on new drugs is said to justify the amount spent by the pharmaceutical industry on R&D/drug discovery.

Why is the argument different for seeds/DNA sequences, or any other invention that benefits humanity, if it is?

Retric12y ago

The problem seed manufactures get to enforce useless patents. Step 1, patent junk DNA. Step 2, prevent farmers from using seed banks due to useless patent. Step 3, profit.

Net value to society... Nothing.

ronaldx12y ago

This argument is against patenting 'junk' DNA: but European and American patent law both require a patent to have industrial application and to be novel.

So, I find it unlikely that this situation should apply in practice (although it is worrying that it might apply). And, I don't find it an argument against patenting useful non-junk DNA.

Note: I'm probably on your side, at least in that I dislike implementation of patent law in general.

jrkelly12y ago

There is actually a company looking to take this idea to court: http://www.nature.com/news/bioengineers-look-beyond-patents-...

It took a similar case to make software copyrightable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_in_t...

phryk12y 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…

jrkelly12y ago

>This seems like the sort of thing that doesn't just have >the potential to greatly stifle innovation

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse