Basic Building Blocks Of Life Patented... But Wins A Nobel Prize
from the is-that-good-or-bad? dept
joseph franklin writes in to point out that this year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to some researchers who helped uncover some of the basic building blocks of life, ribosomes. Figuring out how to model these was great, but Franklin's concern is that not only did these researchers get a Nobel Prize for it, they got a patent as well:The patent holders and licensees surely believe that these products will be life-saving, and profitable, and I hate to rain on the Nobel Prize parade. But should research so fundamental to life, such as the ribosome structure, be locked up for commercial gain -- like Dynamite? Should a private institution, such as Yale, have the only say over how ribosomes may be developed into new biomedical technologies?
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
Filed Under: building blocks, chemistry, nobel prize, patents, ribosomes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How do you patent something you didn't invent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you patent something you didn't invent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you patent something you didn't invent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Building Blocks of Life Patent
Does that mean every new parent is infringing this patent?
I hate this kind of thing. Most of the human genome is patented to hell. It just shouldn't be possible.
Could you patent Gravity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrogance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrogance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dna patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
glad I already have 2 kids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Patent
I dont think they were given a patent on the molecular structure of the human ribosome. I hope that would not be allowed.
It is a bad patent because it covers process and computation. These activities should not be patentable. These processes have been occuring in nature for some time. What's next - a patent on photosynthesis?
In addition, public funds were most likely used. This practice is questionalbe at best and should be stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Patent
Just a little FYI for the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RTFP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RTFP
To do so is to interfere with a "conversation" by interjecting reality into the conversation. How rude to even suggest this should be done in the interest of accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RTFP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RTFP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RTFP
Which is the way we can examine them. It's like patenting the telescope.
Meh, you probably think that's reasonable. Let's try this: How much public (i.e., my) money found its way to this project. I want a piece of that shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RTFP
"Should... [Yale] ...have the only say over how ribosomes may be developed into new biomedical technologies?"
While the techdirt portion maybe imply a patent on ribosomes, the excerpt clearly states it is how they are developed that was patented.
I think the point still remains at what cost (to the world/public/others) does the patent allow Yale to capitalize on the marketing of ribosomes? Will it hinder research? Will it prevent studies? Will it prevent life saving procedures? And what will it allow? Profits? and then ultimately would this research not have been done if patents weren't there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
alfred would approve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: alfred would approve
What he laments is the concept of something so integral to life itself receiving a patent, while dynamite, while useful, isn't "life giving."
Anyone interested in setting up a patent for discovery of a simple proccess for the manufacture of DHMO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That'll be 3,000 dollars, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My own patent...
AND, I'm patenting doing all that... ON THE INTERNET.
No reason I shouldn't cash in on all the lawsuits.
In a future patent, I'll also patent doing the same process to schools and colleges, as well as teh process of sending out cease and desist letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Way to go, little punks...
Keep pressing those little keys, shinshilla rabbits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way to go, little punks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way to go, little punks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Message to the patent clerks and medical profession...
8(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People argue that without patents fewer people will invent because many inventors invent only for the money. Inventors that get patents and who initiate infringement lawsuits are likely to be intellectual property maximists. Now society would be much better off if these people invented and allowed anyone to freely benefit from these inventions/discoveries yet, as intellectual property maximists admit, they are self interested in their inventions. So why should I trust that their position to promote intellectual property isn't self interested as well? If they invent solely for self interested reasons why should I trust that their efforts to create more restrictive intellectual property laws aren't motivated by selfish desire and not by a desire to help society? and if their motives to promote stricter intellectual property laws are selfish why should I trust them when they alleged that intellectual property is good for society?
One might argue, "well, intellectual property helps you recover cost." If this was true and their motives to promote intellectual property are really for the benefit of society then they should advocate a system whereby those who get patents must publicly justify their costs (ie: on some website) with receipts and evidence and independent auditors audit them. For society to know the extent that intellectual property covers costs would be beneficial to society because then it helps people decide how restrictive intellectual property laws should be to optimize innovation (ie: how long patents should last).
One may argue that no one would invent if they have to invade their privacy. But
A: When they ask the government for monopolies proof of justification becomes everyone's business.
B: If they value privacy and profits over helping society then why should we trust that their pro intellectual property position is motivated to promote society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]