But our gene sequences are, which IMO is... whacked.

Well, so long as I don't have to pay royalties on myself, I'm fine.

On a side note, I fail to see how the patent and trade office justifies allowing patents on genes, but says that molecules are not patentable, which is exactly what a gene is, more or less.

These are refined gene sequences in the lab, not portions of human bodies, which, as I said, are NOT patentable in the United States.

I don't know that this is true. Do you have a source for this info?

Never quite understood that one. I'm pretty certain there is prior art ranging back a few thousand years. Also, it sure does put having children in a funny perspective.

EDIT:
As you cannot guarantee that a sequence does not already exist, or that it not will appear by spontaneous mutation, it's a slippery slope anyway.

If a competitor already has it in the lab, then they can file for reexamination or sue to invalidate the patent or have a defense if sued for infringement. There is such as thing as "standard of proof", and saying that some competitor might (or might not) have refined this gene sequence is no proof at all. If they have, let them prove it.

In some ways it is dated. Which is why it has to be updated once in a while. For example, to add the ability for women and minorities to vote. It's also ironic that you mention the Constitution. Considering the ideas present in that and the Bill of Rights were actually pre-existing ideas.

As for incentive, the same reason why scientists continue to do work. Name recognition. Not to mention your ignoring the fact that before patents even existed that inventions were always being created. Hell half the stuff that made it possible for you and I to type on the Internet today came from China (Compass, Gunpowder, etc..etc..). None of those inventions were ever patented. If they were then the world would be a drastically different place. So I'm afraid the *roll eyes* goes back to you. Not to mention the history of the United States (the owner of the very document you cite) benefited from not co-operating with patent and copyrights for many years.

Another problem with the patent system beside it's long duration and the inefficiency of the patent office is that each country can issue its own patents. In a era of Globalization it leads to problems like this. So who really created the idea first? It goes back to the idea of paper. It's commonly theorized that paper was discovered by several civilizations independently. You can't prove independent invention in this day and age easily since the people likely holding the patents are the ones with the money to sue you out of existence. Often it's just easier to settle than pay the court and lawyer costs.

Do I think patents and copyrights are needed? Yes. In this day and age it's also easier to screw people over (in the older days if you did that your reputation would be tarnished). Nowdays it's easy to create a new identity. But like unions, capitalism, democracy, communism, religion, and any other idea, humans have taken them far past their original purpose.

Which is one of the geniuses of the Constitution, that it provides for updating. Feel free to lobby for an amendment eliminating patents and copyrights if you want.

But they get paid for their work. Try offering them a contract saying they have to pay for all their research on their own without salary and others can use it without paying them anything for it.


You think the rate of technological advance was the same then as it is now? Besides, there was not modern economy back then. And don't forget what the promise of a monetary reward played in solving the longitude problem.



That's only a problem in the United States. All other countries have patent rights to first inventor to file, not first inventor to invent.

Guess again Mullf. US drug companies HAVE patented unique genes discovered in patients. In my opinion that should not be allowed.

They are for the refined genes in the lab, NOT for the genes in the patient's body. In other words, the patients and/or their current and/or potential future children (or anyone else with the gene) are NOT infringing the patent.