The proper role and scope of government

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

The parents paid for the gene, so the kids are paid for. By the time the kids are ready to reproduce, the patent will probably have expired (20 year term from the date of file) so the grandchildren will be in the public domain. Besides, even if the patent hadn't expired yet by the time the grandkids came along, the company would have to get samples of the grandkids' DNA to prove that they contain their gene.

The example ignored a 17 year life expectancy for a patent. How facts get obtained was also secondary (since your DNA readily available and left everywhere for others to analyze). The point was about what is owned. What qualifies as a patent. Does not matter what service parents paid for. Did they purchase patent rights? And did they also purchase transfer rights? Those are two completely different purchases.

If company A owns an intellectual property called a gene, then the kids who have that repaired gene can be charged a royalty. Whether that is fair is and will always be completely irrelevant. The law is not fair. The law is legal.

So, can a company own a gene? What exactly is the intellectual property defined by a patent? That is what Congress is for.

If company A has a patent on blue-green steel, then anyone who makes blue-green steel must pay company A even though they have no business relationship (ie contract) with company A. Even if they made blue-green steel by accident. Because the existence of blue-green steel is covered by company A's patent.

Existence of a new (repaired) gene in any person could conceivably result in royalty payments ... if the law permits gene patents. And that is the point. What can be patented must be defined by Congress. Using an LED laser to 'exercise' a cat was once patented. Since then, (if I have it correctly), that exercise method is no longer patentable.

Henry Quick - again - the law is not fair. The law is legal. If that patented gene exists in your body, then company A can demand royalty payments. Patents are that cut and dry ... if genes can be patented. Even if your body created that gene due to genetic mutation or by accident due to a drug interaction. Company A still owns that intellectual property and can demand royalty payments.

And so this question must be answered in carefully and wordy detail. What exactly is the property that A owns?


The computer industry defined superior methods of resolving patent disputes. However Apple (Steve Jobs) has created major new incomes for lawyers and other 'we get rich by subverting innovation' types. Apple quietly collected numerous mobile phone patents, transferred them to a patent holding company (Digitube) which in turn created shell companies (Cliff Island, Hupper Island, etc) to hold those patents. Digitube describes itself as a patent acquisition and licensing company. Others call it a patent troll created by Steve Jobs.

Digitube then demonstrated their purpose in 2011 by suing for intellectual property in Kindle, EVO Design 4G, LG's Revolution and Optimus V, Droid, Lumina 710, Breakout, Blackberry, Galaxy SIII, Xperia 3G, ... virtually every cell phone except Apple's. Digitube also filed a complaint in the Commerce Department's ITC to have all other cell phone (except Apple's) be removed from the market.

Somewhere in murky discussions, Digitube eventually transferred patents to RPX; described as a defensive patent aggregator. A company designed to keep patents out of patent trolls and to protect client companies. In this case, to protect a consortium of LG, Samsung, HTC, Pantech, and Ericsson Sony.

In the computer industry, infringed patents were resolved by companies exchanging patent rights - harming lawyer's incomes. Apple has changed the playing field (laws unchanged) by making patents for mobile phones a rich new market for lawyers and patent trolls.

A consortium of Apple, EMC, Ericsson Sony, Microsoft, and RIM spent $4.5 billion to purchase 6000 Nortel Network patents to keep those patents out of Google's hands. At what point do patents do more harm that good?

Its not just a question of what exactly is defined by a patent. Congress must also address the purpose of a patent. Patent law that once made Silicon Valley innovation so productive has now been used to subvert mobile phone industry growth.

But again, that is why we need a Congress full of moderates. Not so many wacko extremists who make it virtually impossible to resolve patent law questions. Meaning courts will have to write (reinterpret) laws. Always necessary when Congress gets into a wacko extremist mode.

Can a gene be patented? A major question that is also a small part of a larger problem. What exactly can be defined by a patent?