Sick Babies Denied Treatment Thanks To Patents
from the think-of-the-children dept
One of the most ridiculous extensions of patent coverage in the past few decades was the decision to allow patents on "genes" for those who discover the genes. Patents aren't supposed to be allowed for things occurring in nature, and it's difficult to see how that doesn't apply to something as basic as genes. Yet, as an anonymous reader wrote in to point out, down in Australia, a company with a patent on a specific gene is causing babies with a severe form of epilepsy to have to delay both diagnosis and treatment. In fact, the delay in treating the babies may miss the sweet spot for treating the disease and preventing brain damage. When patents are being used to stop diagnosing a patient with a serious disease, we should all be asking how the system went so wrong.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
won't somebody please think about the children
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now we have some Pathos...
I'm looking forward to seeing how the current patent system supporters justify baby killing.
*Awaits the Fireworks*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
isn't there a law against holding back treatment that saves a life?
so what's it going to take for this to change? i bet nothing will get done unless there is a violent act against the patent holder. i can imagine reading a story one day about a parent whose child dies due to lack of treatment retaliating by blowing up the office of the company owning the patent. if i worked for that company i'd start being scared to go to work in the morning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gotcha!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In the US, I believe that's true. Perhaps (and apparently) not so in Australia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patenting genes does sound quite immoral and beyond the scope of what patents are intended for, but for the sake of argument, lets say a company does hold a patent on a gene. Does that mean that nobody is allowed to possess that gene without paying a royalty to the patent holder?Wouldn't that be quite difficult to enforce if it was a gene that everybody is actually born with?
But here is where I am really confused, how does holding a patent on a gene prevent otheres from testing to see if the gene is actually there? You're not stealing the gene from the patent holder, you're not trying to sell the gene to others while withholding the profits from the sale from the patent holder? Doesn't this overstep the boundaries of a patent holders right a wee bit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is also happening in the US. Hope you don't have the breast cancer gene -- finding out may be impossibly expensive (or completely unavailable), because a single company owns the patent rights to test for the gene.
Is this a great system, or what?
Hey, where's Angry Dude? Why isn't he bitching about this patent-related post, like he does every other post? Maybe because it makes the flaws in the patent system so patently obvious?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Rarely, if ever, the case...but trying to explain why this is so would be a waste of time on a site that abhors anything to do with patents and copyrights.
If memory serves me correctly, Australia does have the option of exercising the right of "resumption", the equivalent of what in the US is know as "eminent domain".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent
But I still agree with your statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Now we have some Pathos...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Really? So how are things going at that Open Source Personal Genome Project? Is George Church doing well? ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where is the "Stop the Shilling" person.
Yes, patents protect "the little guy" from the big mean corporations ... err except in this case where it is the other way around. Here, the big corporation is killing the little guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darwinism
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wrong question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Slick headline to fan the anti-patent flames. Too bad it is without evidentiary basis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You wish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
How about objective anecdotal evidence? Try reading the article at the top of this page. If you want to accuse Julie Robotham of biased journalism I think you need to provide your own evidence. Until then I'll just consider you another industry shill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The burden of proof for issues such as this is properly laid at the feet of those who make such claims. If their claims are supported by relevant, objective evidence, then they have properly made their point. To say that one must disprove anectodal evidence to present a persuasive argument is intellectually dishonest. One can easily prove a positive. One cannot, if at all, prove a negative. Fortunately, our courts recognize this fundamental distiction and allocate burdens of proof accordingly.
Thank you for referring to me as a "shill". It illuminates your capacity for thoughtful consideration of an issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There was plenty of evidence given in the article. Just exactly what of it do you dispute?
How's that? If the evidence is from a know and reputable source that is (unlike you).
You don't seem to know much about courts either. I don't believe I've ever seen a trial that didn't involve anecdotal evidence, otherwise know as "testimony".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, MLS. Love this stuff. Any time someone actually pins you on something, you go to the well and pull out some pretentious bullshit.
You must be a blast at parties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
stop the shilling!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While dealing with a different medical topic, here in the US for example surgical procedures performed by doctors are exempt from patent infringement by the provisions of our patent laws. This is particularly beneficial to private hospitals. As for public hospitals, they currently enjoy the benefit under US law of the 11th Amendment's recognition of state sovereigh immunity. See, for example, the US Supreme Court decisions in Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank and College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid, cases that further refine state sovereign immunity as first addressed in the Atascadero case issued back about the late 80's/early 90's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]