The fact that you could have a patent over DNA is ridiculous. Having a patent over a procedure is one thing but that's like having a patent over blue eyes or red hair. Sounds like someone in Australia was sleeping at the wheel when they allowed these type of patents to be legit.
We just had a discussion on this very topic in my Biology class a few weeks back. I never imagined that they would deny testing based on a private firm owning the patent to DNA.....which belongs to every human being. Patent the name and the testing for all i care but when they take it this far it's ridiculous. Hospitals should just go ahead with the testing and tell this company to suck eggs.
Isn't this why the Human Genome Project was made? They did it to beat all the companies to patenting the rest of the genes by releasing the information to the public once it was finished. What this company is doing is horribly unethical.
As much as I love capitalism, this is everything that is wrong with it. I am sickened by this company.
Don't you have to create something to patent it? I didn't think you could patent something naturally existing just because you discovered it.
No, watch The Corporation. its a documentary about corporations, their polices, form, etc. this is one of the thigns they talk about. its free [offically] on google video, its in two parts. watch it, and be disturbed. this is the story also, you should be aware that corps have gone into the USA's seed stocks, america, like every other country with a significant farming sector, keeps a huge store of different breeds of commonly grown fuits and veggys, so incase a plague or fungus breakes out, they can distribute a resistant strain of the crop. however, now, those plants are owned by companies, who have patented their genetic code, so if shit happens and new breeds of crops are needed, people will have to pay royalties to the company also, genetically modified crops have been created that inter-breed with natural crops. Monsanto. they created a special pesticide, and a strain of corn that is immune to it, so you can stray without hurting the crops. a farmer might buy this, this strain then gets cross pollinated to all the neighbouring farms, the following year monsanto arrives, takes samples, and sues all the other farmers for 'using their product without a licence'. farmers~! ffs. do not bite the hand that feeds you! lastly, they own alot more stuff. another example is a gene, found to be a common cause of breast cancer is owned by a corp, they charge royalties if anyone wants to do research on it. as for gene-patenting, i consider it a utterly sick and demeted concept, life belongs to no one. everyone involved should go die in a fire. *edit* somthing else occured to me, according to that, its also perfectly legal to own clones, since they arnt born. *waits for the clone-slave farms*
If you can patent something as vague as "one-click shopping" re: amazon.com, I'm not surprised they're claiming to have patented genes. Certainly doesn't make it right, though.
Yeah but patenting bio-engineered plants is certainly different the patenting a naturally occurring gene. Its not as if they are manufacturing or creating it. Way to go supreme court. To me the two are separate issues but I can see how rationalizing one could lead others to rationalize the other.
And oh the irony when the grains cross-pollinate the neighbors field and he sues the neighbor for growing unlicensed gene grain.