![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Something's rotten in patents
To invent a novel gene sequence, scientists rearrange the data that codes for collections of enzymes and promoters and other elements, often combining sequences taken from other organisms. As far as I know, no scientist has yet invented a sequence from whole cloth that happens to assemble an enzyme to catalyze a brand new reaction - only discovered them in currently living or newly bred organisms and collected them for use elsewhere.
No one can patent the process that turns genes into enzymes into metabolic activity into behavior, because that all clearly existed way before any scientist thought to examine it. With that being the case, why do patents on genes get to include this mechanism in their description of what makes them "novel"?
Compare it to the printing press. Johannes Gutenberg could patent that device, no problem. But say he sticks the letters into a particular arrangement inside the press, so it only generates a particular page of print. Does his patent now cover the words on the paper? The arrangement of words itself? If someone else invented another device - a slide projector for example - and projected the same words onto a wall, would they be disqualified for a patent because it's the same words, even though the mechanism for making them appear is totally different?
How is this different from Monsanto, or anyone else, claiming patent rights to a copy of the gene sequence inside some creature they assembled from parts in their lab? Aren't they claiming patent rights to the arrangement of words - the output that emerges from the device - rather than something novel in the device itself?
I'm a software programmer by trade. I can't patent my work, and I understand why. Nevertheless I can assert copyright, and take people to court for infringement if they violate my license. Why does Monsanto get to patent their sequences, just for being inside a different mechanism - a biological one?
("Because otherwise they wouldn't have a business model" Is not a valid reason.)
No one can patent the process that turns genes into enzymes into metabolic activity into behavior, because that all clearly existed way before any scientist thought to examine it. With that being the case, why do patents on genes get to include this mechanism in their description of what makes them "novel"?
Compare it to the printing press. Johannes Gutenberg could patent that device, no problem. But say he sticks the letters into a particular arrangement inside the press, so it only generates a particular page of print. Does his patent now cover the words on the paper? The arrangement of words itself? If someone else invented another device - a slide projector for example - and projected the same words onto a wall, would they be disqualified for a patent because it's the same words, even though the mechanism for making them appear is totally different?
How is this different from Monsanto, or anyone else, claiming patent rights to a copy of the gene sequence inside some creature they assembled from parts in their lab? Aren't they claiming patent rights to the arrangement of words - the output that emerges from the device - rather than something novel in the device itself?
I'm a software programmer by trade. I can't patent my work, and I understand why. Nevertheless I can assert copyright, and take people to court for infringement if they violate my license. Why does Monsanto get to patent their sequences, just for being inside a different mechanism - a biological one?
("Because otherwise they wouldn't have a business model" Is not a valid reason.)
no subject
The problem I worry about with GRMs is that they have produced a "Shipstone" moment for society, and if there are any problems with generational effects, there is no obvious way of putting things right.
The patent thing is the bit enforceable by law. You pointed out to me that it is not enough. Even if we can force folk to open up the genome to public scrutiny, we can't force them to reverse engineer the way any modifications are made.
With GRMs, why bother patenting anything anyway? Deciphering how to construct any particular genome may be a task of a different order of magnitude from understanding the final product, but if they patent the process the patent runs out and the process itself goes into the public domain.
I remain unsure of the best way of dealing with this problem.