| |
|
This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Patenting Life. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.
|
Patenting Life
by k at 11:38 am EST, Feb 14, 2007 |
Last Friday, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, and Dave Weldon, a Republican of Florida, sponsored the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, to ban the practice of patenting genes found in nature.
[ A crucial question : Will it invalidate all the patents that already were issued? Certainly, there's value in not making a bad situation worse, but for the issued patents, is there a remedy besides waiting for the patent to expire? I think there is some complexity to this issue that Crichton leaves out which is that some researchers actually do create novel genetic sequences that are related to existing genes, but modified to do something different. Perhaps the answer is to permit patents on the outcome (for example "generating medical grade insulin from genetically modified bacteria") rather than the genetic sequences themselves. Thus, the patent is on the product or process, not the genes that enable it... EDIT
Some answers to my own questions. Per Congressman Becerra's press release, the bill is not retroactive and will require patent expiry to bring the existing patented genes back into the public domain : The legislation gives guidance to the USPTO on what is not patentable – in this case genetic material, naturally-occurring or modified. It is not retroactive – it does not rescind the patents already issued. Patents are granted for a period of 20 years from the date that an application is originally filed. “Thus, if we enact this bill into law quickly, we will reach balance in less than two decades – a patent-free genome that does not hinder scientific research, business enterprise, or human morality,” Rep. Becerra said.
I couldn't find the bill on THOMAS, but a bill of the same name was introduced back in 2002 by Representative Lynn Rivers [D-MI13] and, again, Representative Weldon. It would seem that the current bill is somewhat different. The 2002 bill amended the law to permit as non-infringing certain uses of patented genetic sequences. It does not, by my reading, halt or proscribe the issuance of patents on genetic sequences. The statements above appear to indicate that Becerra's and Weldon's current bill do precisely that : prevent the ongoing practice of patenting genetic sequences. I look forward to reading the bill... perhaps someone else can find it where I failed... -k ] |
| |
RE: Patenting Life
by possibly noteworthy at 12:26 pm EST, Feb 14, 2007 |
Last Friday, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, and Dave Weldon, a Republican of Florida, sponsored the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, to ban the practice of patenting genes found in nature.
k wrote: I couldn't find the bill on THOMAS ... I look forward to reading the bill ... perhaps someone else can find it ...
The bill is in Thomas as HR 977: Genomic Research and Accessibility Act. It's quite short: To amend title 35, United States Code, to prohibit the patenting of human genetic material. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 9, 2007 Mr. BECERRA (for himself and Mr. WELDON of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend title 35, United States Code, to prohibit the patenting of human genetic material. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Genomic Research and Accessibility Act'. SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PATENT OF HUMAN GENETIC MATERIAL. (a) In General- Chapter 10 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: `Sec. 106. Prohibition on patent of human genetic material `Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may be obtained for a nucleotide sequence, or its functions or correlations, or the naturally occurring products it specifies.'. (b) Table of Contents- The table of sections of chapter 10 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `106. Prohibition on patent of human genetic material.'. (c) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not apply to a patent issued before the date of the enactment of this Act.
|
|
| | |
RE: Patenting Life
by k at 1:10 pm EST, Feb 14, 2007 |
possibly noteworthy wrote:
The bill is in Thomas as HR 977: Genomic Research and Accessibility Act. It's quite short: To amend title 35, United States Code, to prohibit the patenting of human genetic material. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 9, 2007 Mr. BECERRA (for himself and Mr. WELDON of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend title 35, United States Code, to prohibit the patenting of human genetic material. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Genomic Research and Accessibility Act'. SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PATENT OF HUMAN GENETIC MATERIAL. (a) In General- Chapter 10 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: `Sec. 106. Prohibition on patent of human genetic material `Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may be obtained for a nucleotide sequence, or its functions or correlations, or the naturally occurring products it specifies.'. (b) Table of Contents- The table of sections of chapter 10 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `106. Prohibition on patent of human genetic material.'. (c) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not apply to a patent issued before the date of the enactment of this Act.
Quite short indeed... I wonder if it might be too broad... i'll have to put some thought into this. |
|
Patenting Life
by possibly noteworthy at 9:33 am EST, Feb 13, 2007 |
You can’t patent snow, eagles or gravity, and you shouldn’t be able to patent genes, either. Yet by now one-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned. The results have been disastrous.
|
|
|
