To get a patent, one not only has to discover / design something, but publish all one's information on the item. This means that to gain temporary protection, the research information needs to be made public.

A patent will not protect one against practises and uses of the product in place before the patent was filed (as can be seen by the Basmati issue. Patents for existing genes are therefore very difficult and expensive to enforce (as can be seen in the article)

Patents expire in 20 years or less, so any one that wishes to profit from their patents need to use them, develop something from them and sell them in the relatively short 20yr window.

After the 20 years all humanity benefits from the research that developed the patent free of charge.

While I find the shotgun patenting of every gene in sight, logic says that if every single gene were patented today, in 20 years the world would be a better place.

20 years is a long time when it comes to research, SM.

Consider copyright law - I seem to recall the Walt Disney company found that their copyright was going to expire and successful pushed to extend the duration of their protection.

If large sums of money accumulated... I could see companies pushing to extend patent laws beyond 20 years.

Researching something that already exists should mean the 'research' itself can be patented and that other companies who wish to access that information should pay for it. Presumably there would also be money to be made from offering consultations and advice to others in the field. However the natural object can't be patented. If you use that research to formulate some kind of medicine, then sure you have the patent rights. But you can't 'own' genes - at least, you shouldn't be able to.

Maybe it's possible to Patent "parasitism"? Eg; put the parasites out of business.

Dear jorge,
Thank you for the link regarding the Basmati rice patents.
I think the problem here is that poor third world farmers who rely on indigenous knowledge and products for their survival are being caught up in the global tsunami for profit.

Shiva also had this to say:

"Instead of recognising that commercial interests build on nature and on the contribution of other cultures, global law has enshrined the patriarchal myth of creation to create new property rights to life forms just as colonialism used the myth of discovery as the basis of the take over of the land of others as colonies....When patents are granted for seeds and plants, theft is defined as creation, and saving and sharing seed is defined as theft of intellectual property. Corporations have broad patents on crops such as cotton, soya bean and mustard and are suing farmers for seed saving and hiring detective agencies to find out if farmers have saved seed and shared it with neighbours....Sharing and exchange, the basis of our humanity and our ecological survival has been redefined as a crime."

Dear Poirot,

I agree. A lot of the major multinational biotech companies are going about their global business but forgetting that not all markets are the same. Something that would work in say the US or Australia may not work in other markets. Even if the multinationals have a legal basis for their arguments, it overlooks the fact that things are just not done in a certain way in some places.

It is a tricky situation when it comes to seeds etc as opposed to say other multinational products like cars or clothes, but I guess it's something we have to keep our eyes on all the time. Generic drugs in Brazil and Africa are one example where I think government intervention resulted in improvements on the health of many people, but I am not 100% clear on the details, especially after reading this article:

http://www.wharton.universia.net/index.cfm?fa=viewArticle&id=1086&language=english

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/