To expand slightly:

"biological materials…whether isolated or purified or not and however made, which are identical or substantially identical to such materials as they exist in nature....biological materials, in section 18, includes DNA, RNA, proteins, cells and fluids."

My first concern regarding the amendment in the term "substantially identical" How is this to be defined? Identical to whom? Due to the natural variation in human genes, proteins and cells the term "identical" is not easily defined, even without the term "substantially" to confuse things further.

With or without Gene Patents people are going to die.

Its an economic guarantee that in an overcrowded world death will be the big money spinner. Every CEO from arms manufacture to funeral homes will be looking to up-the-ante in 'death' and increase profits.

In all this turmoil, gene patents will just be a sideshow for the greedy and inheritance rich.

The bottom line:

With or without Gene Patents people are going to die. ONLY without those patents they will at least die a lot cheaper and with INDIVIDUALITY and dignity.

Besides gene patent holders gouging $billions out of mum and dads for basic hospital treatments will make great target practice for the dawning urban guerillas that overpopulation is spawning.

Its a brave new world a'coming and there'll be
no place for those wishing to build DNA sand castles unless they are very fast runners.

I do not agree Dr Lavelle.

While you do mix in some good information and make some good points in that patents do not stifle research, that is because they can't. What patents do for the holder is that they give them the right to PREVENT other people from developing that research into marketable product. Patents do not encourage research at all, all the legal wrangling prevents development and delivery to market of a lot of very good research. This virtual monopoly on the right to development also ensures that of the tiny number of potential products that actually make it market are overpriced and generally unaffordable for routine uses.

That is, patents don't stifle research, they stifle development of research to market. For example, how many of those 5,500 publications have been used as the basis of a marketable product? Has BRCA1 screening become cheaper because of this research?

Patents may be currently used to attract funding, but that's only because of the patent system. If you don't have a patent, then someone can lodge one and stop you dead. But what happens when noone CAN have a patent and thus cannot stop your product development? I reckon a lot of smaller companies could develop products without having to spend so much money on lawyers.

You should have a good chat with Dr. Richard Jefferson of Cambia, he'll tell you like it is, without all the emotive language about people dying.

Open access is the only way to go.

There is an agenda here to own existing genes by purely mapping them.It is like the old colonalism,"We own the newly discovered lands because we mapped them first." No consideration is given to those who own the genes or the live in those lands.They will belong to the new global corporate culture.

"With or without Gene Patents people are going to die"

Well said, KAEP, you took the words out of my mouth and I also agree with the rest of what you said. Death should not be considered as an enemy, but living without dignity should.

How presumptuous of the author to claim:

"Undeniably the hope of every Australian would be for a world-class health system that provided timely, safe and cost-effective access to essential treatments and life-enhancing medicines and technologies."

Has the author actually ASKED every Australian before making such a gross generalisation? I for one was never asked about it, nor do I hope for the above.

Arjay

Sorry to interrupt with some facts, but if you'd read the article you would have seen;

"In Australia today naturally-occurring phenomena such as genes are already considered discoveries, not inventions, and therefore are not patentable subject matter"

Your still fighting the last war.

Yuyutsu

I don't think it is presumptuous at all to say that Australians want a world-class health system. I've never anyone argue that our health system is "too good". If you don't understand the point of the health system it is probably best the author did not contact you for your opinion.

"I don't think it is presumptuous at all to say that Australians want a world-class health system.""

We HAD a world class health system.

CEO's, the business council and out of touch politicians living in Canberra fairy-land have stuffed so many immigrants into cities for GST, Votes and burgeoning market-shares that when you go to an emergency department with a broken leg you're likely to come away with a black eye. It wasn't like that as little as 5 years ago but it is now and its getting worse.

Triage sisters spend nearly a third of their time calling out Mahommed and other Islamic names. 5 years ago there wouldn't have been but one and you could be seen in less than 1/2hour instead of 5 or 6 hours now. Go to an emergency department and see for yourself.

If it weren't so serious it would be a Mike Carlton comedy classic.

As politicians feel the heat of racially divided communities and waning support for ruling Anglo Saxon Government, the first lever they pull is "more immigration" hoping against hope that the bigger crowd mentality will make communities MORE dependent and thus less likely to vote for the "opposition". CEO's love this because they rake in the money from bigger markets. Governments love it because all they have to do is PROMISE better health and infrastructure but never have to deliver it because those who need it die in the rat race.

Every time, costs like health care are externalised to the sick and dying, who one way or another are perishing and will continue to perish well into the next 3 decades despite any money-spinning gene patents. This is BECAUSE it MAKES GOOD BUSINESS, STRONG GST cashed up Anglo GOVERNMENT and a NATION BUILT of idiots no better off than farm animals mooing, whinnying, braying and snorting "we are, you are, I am Austra-lee-an" as they walk up the ramp to the taxation abbatoir.

And yes, their meat will be tastier. Thanks to those GENE PATENTS that only abbatoirs could afford to franchise

Dear Stezza,

It is presumptuous on your part to assume that here is a case of mis-understanding. It is rather a case of not being in agreement.

I happen to believe, for various reasons, that the above "dream" is not a good idea and so do some of my friends. There are also others who think that "well, it's OK if it happened, but certainly not a priority" and yet some others who think "It would be nice, but I don't want to pay the price". We simply don't share that dream.

Do you know the meaning of the word "every"?
It does not mean "some", not even "most", it means that not even one Australian out of about 22 millions does not share that same dream. The author goes further to claim that her statement is "undeniable" - well I am able to deny it, so her statement is obviously false!

"I've never anyone argue that our health system is "too good"."

I believe you, but that does not mean that you met everyone in Australia, or even if you did, that everyone was interested in arguing with you. Now even when people do believe that our health system is "not too good", that does not automatically imply that their idea of goodness is identical to your idea of goodness.

Thank you.

lets compare these two auther quotes

"With appropriate safeguards
gene patenting is the only way
we will derive the full benefit from our biological inheritance"

so the auther wants to patent genes
yet in the body of the text states this

"In Australia today naturally-occurring phenomena such as genes are already considered discoveries, not inventions,

and therefore are not patentable subject matter"

when arjay made his valid point
the second quote was put there as some form of talism

yet lets look at the HEADING TITLE

"Without gene patents people will die"

so what does this suggest?

this is a lobby article
to get patent rights

thus arjays statement
STANDS

''There is an agenda here to own existing genes by purely mapping them.

It is like the old colonalism,"
We own the newly discovered lands because we mapped them first."

No consideration is given to those who own the genes or the live in those lands.

They will belong to the new global corporate culture.""

lest we forget what ge corn genes
found in a neighbouring farm does/did for monsanto

THEY SUE
they test the corn
and say look here are OUR GENES

and that folks is what its all about

[stealing the healthy genes]
so those who carry them..
CANT EVEN CLAIM to own/their own genes

these people arnt interested in finding any cure
they dont care about sick
THEY WANT TO STAKE THEIR CLAIM

lest we forget govt bought the gene mapping machines
if anyone could claim to own 'genes'..it MIGHT be govt
but only as a trust... not a patent right...

the authers adgenda
is owning your genes.[fullstop]

There's some scary and misinformed people on here.

Here's some facts:
1. you cannot draft a patent claim today for purely a gene sequence and obtain a patent monopoly for 20 years. Why? because the human genome has been mapped (Human Genome Project) and so the claim will not be novel.
2. Yes, there are a few (approx. 400 I believe) "gene patents" that haven't yet come off patent and were filed before the Human Genome Project sequenced the human genome. They will come off patent in the next couple of years and this will return to being the nonissue it was for the last few decades.
3. The proposed patent amendment act will not prevent the Australian monopoly GTG has over the BRCA1/2 diagnostic tests which started this debate in the first place. Seems silly doesn't it that the reason for amending the Patent Act 1990 won't even be affected.
4. Amending the Act according to the proposed changes will effect availability of medicines in Australia. Read the senate submissions and you will see that Amgen, the world's biggest biotech company have stated that if they don't have patent protection for their products (and they are completely aware that they won't which is why the American company is making the submission), they will not send them into the Australian market.
5. If the same proposed amendments in the Bill had been introduced 10 to 15 years ago, 28 of the most popular medicines in use in Australia including herceptin, the commonly used breast cancer drug would not be under patent and therefore would not likely be available in Australia (source: Medicines Australia)(i.e you would need to import them at exhorbitant cost because the PBS wouldn't apply)
6. Pharmaceuticals are expensive because it costs a company on average approx. half a billion dollars to take a promising compound and turn it into an approved drug on a pharmacy shelf.

cont.

7. Won't generics just come into Australia and fill any space left by the innovative companies? No. Why? because they will have to carry out the trials themselves in order to gain Australian regulatory approval and develop a market for the product in Australia. Why would they spend the millions under the knowledge that another generic will use their hard work to come in and undercut them on price (how do they know - because that is their business model).
8. Why hasn't research been stifled by patents in Australia? (1) Because researchers generally have no money so the court costs don't make them a target worth suing; (2) it would damage a companies reputation which would damage their bottom line as doctors etc might no longer recommend their drug or treatment; (3) up until a couple of years ago everyone thought their was an implied research exemption in the Patents Act because it didn't seem to fit into the definition of "exploit". Why has WEHI, the top medical institute in Australia come out also rejecting the amendments to the Act?
9. If the proposed amendments are such a good thing, then why has Ian Frazer (Australian of the Year and Gardasil vaccine inventor) now come out against the politicians he was originally supporting and said in his submission to the Senate that the amendments are too broad and his cervical cancer vaccine wouldn't have patent protection under these changes (and therefore would never have existed if the changes came in before he invented it as Merck wouldn't have put up the multi-millions to develop it).
10. If you want more, let me know.
In summary, the amendments are too broad, they won't do what they were intended to do, all the researchers who have a clue know it, the biotech industry knows it, big pharma is ready to pull their products out of Australia if this goes through, the lawyers will be the winners from all the additional cases that will go through the court, and the public will suffer. What a joke Heffernan

Oh LOL, donut, scary and misinformed people on a blog site? Where have you been?

However I consider myself neither scary nor fully misinformed.

Much of what you have written is currently irrelevant, including the submission by Ian Frazer, currently considered a 'winner' under the current patenting system.
There are many other submissions that support the bill, including from organisations such as

Human Genetics Society of Australasia
Australian Reproductive Health Alliance
Cancer Voices NSW
Breast cancer Action Group NSW

just to name a few, available from here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/patent_amendment/submissions.htm

It is interesting to note that many, such as the The Royal College of Pathologists of Australia
that don't support many of the amendments as they stand but fully support the intent of the bill and believe that ongoing process of refining the amendments should take place.

A major source of concern, and I am by no means alone in this comes from the statement from IP Australia to the Senate Inquiry into gene patents:

"A patent over a gene sequence does not equate to ownership of that sequence. A patent is a right to restrain others from using or exploiting the claimed invention without the patentee's permission".
This has serious implications for the making of medical diagnoses.

This is not about manufactured drugs. Large multinational comapnies often make noises about not amking their products available if they don't 'get their way'. This is understandable, after all they are a business that wants to protect their revenue stream.

On the other hand, if they have a revenue stream, they will continue to do business. If people die because they chuck what the public (i.e. the scary and misinformed) percieve as a hissy fit, they will lose revenue either way.

Lastly, the genetic landscape of discovery is rapidly changing and diagnostic development is about to become a whole lot cheaper and easier to provide. We seriously need to prepare out legal landscape to keep up and help innovation.

Heffernan may be a joke, but there are plenty of well informed people who are not currently laughing.

Thanks Bugsy for putting your arguments forward. I do not consider them scary.
Can you please identify which points of mine you include as irrelevant under “much”? I’m intrigued.
As for Ian, he doesn’t consider himself a winner. He still lives in the same smallish house and rides his bike to work. He was originally vocal in his opposing of the “gene patents”, and has not changed his mind, he just sees the proposed amendments for what they are – too broad. He has identified that the proposed changes would have meant that his vaccines to prevent cervical cancer would not have arisen if under the proposed system. He sees that as a poor outcome for Australia. He is not an idiot nor driven by greed.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said “many, such as The Royal College of Pathologists of Australia that don't support many of the amendments as they stand but fully support the intent of the bill and believe that ongoing process of refining the amendments should take place”. I have underlined the important bit i.e. everyone that has a clue knows that the amendments are too broad.
You did see my point 3 didn’t you that diagnostic patents will not even be affected by the proposed amendments?
I think you are missing the point about Amgen. Their market is not in pharmaceutical compounds per se but in protein based therapies and they are not making noises. If their therapeutics come off patent there is no longer any point coming into a market for 20 million people, with no protection, to be undercut by generics.

To sum up my position:
1. I don’t have a problem with removing “gene patents”. There aren’t many of them left; you can’t get them now anyway. Big deal.
2. But, the proposed amendments are way too broad. Even the researchers, pathologists, clinicians who have done their research can see it. In their current form they will negatively affect the provision of healthcare in Australia.
3. Why are they so broad? Because those proposing the changes don’t know enough about patent law or the science behind it (you need years of experience in both).
4. The problem of refining the proposed amendments is that it is a very difficult process of selecting the correct wording to amend s 18 of the Act because you are trying to predict what will happen in the future and remove negative outcomes that you can’t foresee. Hence the current dilemma.
Unfortunately for Heffernan, when reading through the Senate submissions it seems that many of the “well informed people” though wanting to knock off gene patents (all power to them), see the amendments for what they are. Possibly that’s why they are not laughing.

Thanks for the link Bugsy, and the good comments donut. If the title had been more wisely chosen, some posters may not have missed the point of the argument. This amendment will not effect the current (in)ability to patent gene sequences.

From the submission of the he Group of Eight (Go8) leading Australian universities:

"The current patents act 1990 specifies that a patentable invention has to be: a manner of manufacture, novel, involve an inventive step and useful...the requirement for an inventive step should be sufficient to ensure that discoveries cannot be the subject of granted patents."

I agree that rather than amending the language to exclude specific patents (biologicals in this case), the language should emphasize the intended point of patents, to protect novel, useful inventions. This way we won't be playing catch up in another 10 years time when we have a new products which cannot be easily defined or predicted. I can think of many potential products from my field of work which will not be defined by the proposed amendments. Most likely they will cause more trouble that we currently have.

Ok, so everyone agrees on the intent of the amendments. It appears that most people agree that there should be amendments.What is in issue is that some of the submissions consider some of the wording of the amendments is too broad.

That may be the case, and that should be nutted out. However, I truly think that the patent system as a whole has been thoroughly abused in recent times and has outlived it's usefulness. However, I don't think that this warrants calling the proposer of the amendments 'a joke' (even if he is).

You want to know which bits of your arguments are irrelevant? Ok, the history of patent winners and medicines that made it through the patent system is irrelevant. There are plenty more that didn't because they weren't lucrative enough to bother, or couldn't make it through because someone held a patent on a part of the invention. It's what Nassim Taleb would call the 'cemetery of silent evidence'. That Dr. Frazer does not consider himself a 'winner' is also largely irrelevant.

There also seemsm to be contradictory argument in what you have written. On the one hand, you say that companies won't invest because of generics undercutting them, but then say that generics won't come in because they will have to do the testing to meet regulatory approval. You also have stated that research has not been stifled because researchers haven't been prosecuted as they are considered too poor to worry about and it would damage company reputations etc. This acknowledges the fact that they could be persued and stopped in their tracks if the patent holders wanted to. I consider this a very uncomfortable position for a researcher to be in, even if they are unaware of it.
It is for this reason I will continue to support open access whenever possible.

Thanks Bugsy for your comments.
Regarding your new points I have the following questions/comments:
“I truly think that the patent system as a whole has been thoroughly abused in recent times and has outlived it's usefulness”. Can you please cite specific examples and I will consider them on individual merit.
Heffernan is a joke (or the devil – in his own words). Since when is putting isolated DNA in a vector considered “bureaucratic mumbo jumbo” (Heffernan). I have tried to explain this issue with the proposed amendments with another politician involved but who has no background in patent law or science, and they just didn’t get it.
I don’t understand this whole “patent winner” thing you keep referring to. Seems a relative or abstract concept to me. Many patent holders set up companies that go nowhere through running out of money or poor management. I don’t see them as winners.
Your comment “or couldn't make it through because someone held a patent on a part of the invention”. Please cite examples so I can consider them on their merit. I have never heard of Nassim Taleb but I will look him up as he sounds intriguing.
Sorry that I confused you but it’s not a contradictory argument. Whether innovative or generic company, you need to firstly obtain regulatory approval in Australia for a new product which is far more onerous and costly for the first applicant because any other applicants (generics) largely cite the first applicant’s results when seeking their later approval. Secondly, you need to develop a market which includes large advertising and marketing costs to convince doctors, pharmacies, clinicians, hospitals to use your product instead of what they were already using/doing. Depending on the product, this can be a very labour intensive and costly exercise

Therefore, if an innovative company doesn’t enter Australia with a new product X, then a generic would have to incur these costs in gaining approval and developing a market for their version of X. Except they won’t do that because they don’t have any way (patent) to stop a further generic coming in after them who can avoid most of the regulatory approval costs and enter an already developed market for X. Why is this a problem? Because the first generic has to recover their costs for gaining approvals and marketing and so naturally they will have to cost their product X higher than what the second generic has to. That’s why the generics don’t do it (at least in Australia). Hopefully that removes any confusion.
“This acknowledges the fact that they could be pursued and stopped in their tracks if the patent holders wanted to”. Yes, this is correct. I didn’t say otherwise. I just explained why it doesn’t happen. If you read the Senate submissions by IP Australia you will see that they and IPTA recommend amending the Act to include research provisions that will ensure researchers cannot be sued.
(I have more to say but I won't be allowed to for the next 24 h - will return soon)

Sorry donut, I seem to be confusing you. I only referred to ‘patent winners’ once, but this is probably not a very accurate turn of phrase, as they certainly aren’t the same as ‘patent holders’, as you agree. I merely meant someone who has been successful in navigating the minefield of patent law and turned their ‘whatever’ into a successful product.

I am wary of history written by these ‘winners’. It is all too easy for any one of them to look back at their own story and say ‘it would never have been able to happen without the patent system’, but how would they know? The patent system was the only one they were able to work under to attract investment, as that is the status quo. The ‘losers’, those who are unsuccessful do not get to have such a high profile as the success stories.

Consider the idea that the patent lens database (http://www.patentlens.net/) has over 80 million DNA and protein sequences disclosed in patents. Considering that one has to show utility to obtain a patent, how many of these potentially useful sequences have been developed into product? A very tiny minority.

Under the current system investment seems to be heavily weighted towards products and medicines that have a high return, not necessarily those that will save the most number of lives or have the best societal outcomes. This is why we have high investments in statins and erection drugs and not so much in anti-malarials. The continent that is suffering the most is Africa, with HIV drugs being unaffordable and people dying because of patent rights blocking access to cheaper treatment.

The high cost of legals, development and marketing under the current system is used as the justification to keep patents and maintain virtual monopolies on products because the costs are incurred almost entirely by the benefitting company, and thus the rewards are also.

I believe that without the patent system, i.e. under an open access/ source system, the costs of development can be shared more easily. More products would be able to be brought to market, perhaps with lower profit margins, but hopefully greater benefit. Revenue streams will not disappear. I know I am being exceptionally hopeful in this, there is too much investment in the system for it to change, but it is merely my opinion. Just because we are doomed to work within the current system does not mean I have to like it or believe it’s the only way.

Although mending the act to prevent researchers being sued is certainly one recommendation I can wholeheartedly support, but it does not alter the current fact that many of them have been operating ‘illegally’ (even if unaware of it), contravening patent laws and could potentially be sued any time they become successful or high profile

this is a case of why do the things that they do
see on sunday we saw a great piece[story]..of love
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/#fop

its called
'the power of love'
currently its on this page
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/

in two parts
[that both seem to have the same link?]
but it will get lost in the noise
thus i give its name and location

why?
because negus did a hit piece
on the same topic last night

but he didnt mention the new german method[trial]
his is the current 'best practice'..that failed [in the power of love]

the hero of the story found a cure for luekemia
after searching the web thousands of times..
using hundreds of friends

[after going the normal route of radition
and tcell that often fails but negass sold as some miracle-cure]
the very next day

in short the other cure
that worked after negass cure failed
and is in danger of being lost in the chatter yet again

anyhow this other [non negass] cure
also has a failure rate..and wasnt memtioned by name
also involved tcells [but maybe not radiation]
but worked..where 'classic medicine'.. only offerd dying

see this is how big medi-sin works
someone finds a cure that works
but the media goes for the propaganda/spin of the old way

not much we can do about it
except if they say
your going to die

dont swallow their spin
record the cure story if you can
while you can..

before someone buys up the patent
and makes the confusion go away

of course this is a totally unbiased position and the profit motive is the furthest thing from the author's mind.

Thanks for your comments Bugsy. I don't agree with you but that's fine. If you've had much to do with the stock market or investment, you will know that investors have access to a wide range of technolgies/industries and will choose where to place their money based on the type of returns they are after and the risks. If the risk is too high in one e.g. unpatented biomedical technologies, they will simply put their money in another e.g. resources. I certainly wouldn't put my money into a company with new biomed technology that has no form of protection for the RnD investment made to develop the technology.
As for open source, patents make companies publish their technology. No patents equals no publishing for companies. It's that simple. If Myriad couldn't get patents for their diagnostic tests, they would simply keep it as confidential information so no one would know what they were doing for a lot longer than 20y. You can't reverse engineer it either as you simply send them a blood sample and they just say yes or no to whether you have the relevant BRCA1/2 mutations or not.

As for Shal's comment: do your research. Anna Lavelle is the head of Ausbiotech, an idustry organisation i.e. she would have a set salary and would get no profit as Ausbiotech is a not-for-profit.

donut, I can understand how you think that patents reduce a biotech company's risk. However, in many ways the patenting system increases it. Many a startup have fallen afoul of the legalities involved.

The way the system is currently set up, Research investment is quite a small part of the development process. Marketing is generally far larger.

Myriad may have kept their diagnostic tool secret, but that wouldn't matter. Their diagnostic is already obsolete. The paradigm can change, the perception of risks change when everyone operates under the same system.

To take a (not patent related) example: I have spoken to industry people about scenarios that may involve them incurring extra costs. Of course they say do not want this, especially if it penalises them in a specific way. But if they get told that everyone, including their competitors also incur this cost scenario, then they appear more ok with it. Then it becomes, well if that's what we have to do, we'll do it. It's the uneven playing fields that cannot be tolerated. Open source can improve the science, specific inventions using the open source can still be patented.

Donut,
Apply some analysis. The industry body may be a non profit, but the companies it represents are for profit companies.
Yes she is paid a salary. She is paid a salary to further the interests of her organisation which is funded by the commercial gene technology companies to further their interests.

"Many a startup have fallen afoul of the legalities involved." Only if they haven't done their due dilligence (freedom to operate search) as every company should before they start any commercial activity.

"Research investment is quite a small part of the development process". I don't mean to be rude but WTF. Clinical trials are the largest cost for any product to be used in humans. Ask any one in the industry.

"Their diagnostic is already obsolete". Maybe in theory but not in commercial reality. Genetic Tech. are still making a lot of money from Myriad's test in Australia.

I think you're last paragraph is very idealistic but not realistic. The equivalent of removing patents in the biotech field would be to remove mining leases. How well do you think it will work if a small drilling company finds an ore body only for a large company to walk in and set up on their find with no recourse for the small player. It becomes biggest wins. The small biotechs need to be able to get that patent protection to keep those big players with their greater resources to stay out of their space unless they are prepared to buy or license the technology. Or should the larger company be able to do that in an open source system? And, no they don't do that anyway because as mentioned previously, their reputation is important to them.

Ok, agreed on the clinical trials for drugs/treatments, but diagnostics?

Genes and their products are not 'technology', the methods and applications are.

BTW, I am fully aware of how idealistic my statements are. I just thought that there is more than one point of view on this issue, even from people who work within the biotech industry, I did not come up with it by myself. In many other parts of the technology world, open source products do ok and don't remove revenues from the other products they compete with.

The cost of clinical trials (and indeed much of the research development) are huge because they are always footed by the company that stands to make all the money because they own the patent. This need not be so.

To say that the freedom to operate search protects you is one thing, but there are still grey areas that can get challenged. The due dilligence is a cost that is incurred even before you start. That's alright for the big boys.

Patents are not going to go away anytime soon. I understand that, heck I mostly agree with that. However the law needs to catch up with the science and this debate needs to happen and looks like it is, however not within the general public, as evidenced here.

The ground you really have to cover with the public is: are patents about protecting the 'big players' or protecting the 'small players' from the big ones? If you can answer that clearly and show the benefits of patenting biologicals clearly, then you will have little argument from the public. Patents are about proetcting revenue streams, the question is whose exactly? And should many of them be protected long past their obsolescence?

Shal: when you say apply some analysis do you mean apply some telepathy? I can only comment on what you write not what you are thinking. If you had written your most recent comment to begin with I wouldn't have disagreed with you.

Bugsy: "I just thought that there is more than one point of view on this issue". I agree and it is ok that our points of view are different and we've both had a good chance to get our views across (I like this forum).

"In many other parts of the technology world, open source products do ok". I agree such as in IT and software except this works due to the fast rate of change of the technology. Before a patent would be examined in such an area, the tech. would be obsolete. The opposite is the case for biotech.

"This need not be so.". Who else would put up the money. Govt's won't.

"To say that the freedom to operate search protects you is one thing, but there are still grey areas that can get challenged." Of course. It doesn't protect you, it tells you about the space you are working in and what you need to avoid. And, it doesn't cost that much.

"the law needs to catch up with the science". I agree but also realise that you can't constantly change the legislation every time science shows something new (We have case law for that). Instead, as recommended by the Australian Law Review Committee (who has nothing to gain or lose from the patent debate), any changes to the legislation should be technology neutral. For example, if you amend s 18 to exclude sequences of nucleic acids, then unknowingly you might effect developments in new computer code using nucleic acids.

"are patents about protecting the 'big players' or protecting the 'small players' from the big ones? Good point but in my view patenting allows any player regardless of size the same level of right over a new technology (such as in my mining lease example). See, if a large company succeeds in removing a patent of a smaller player, the resulting case law may then be used against them by a third party to knock out one of their patents. So all players play cautiously in this system.

"and should many of them be protected long past their obsolescence?" If the technology in a patent is obsolete, then by definition, the only worth is in the paper they are written on and they shouldn't bother anyone. Usually, in this case, a patent owner will not renew (google: patent renewals) and the patent will simply lapse.

Ah Donut,
an oldie but a goodie.
When losing the argument, resort to blaming the messenger.

time to end the scam

[lies]

clearly cutting corners on research
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/forest_pharmaceuticals_fined_164_million_24048.aspx
and spending it on patent rights [and advertising]
isnt doing it for the kids

Japan halts vaccines from Pfizer,
Sanofi after deaths of four children
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/japan-halts-vaccines-from-pfizer-sanofi.html
Mike Adams
Natural News

The deaths just keep mounting all across the world: Children are collapsing into comas and then dying, just minutes after receiving combination vaccines that have been deceptively marketed as "completely safe."

Last year, Australia temporarily banned flu vaccines in children after they were found to have caused vomiting, fevers and seizures
http://www.naturalnews.com/029586_A

Today the damage from vaccines is emerging in Japan, where the health ministry has suspended the use of vaccines from Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis following the deaths of four children there who died within minutes after receiving these vaccine shots...

Los Alamos Scientist:
TSA Scanners Shred Human DNA
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/17090/56/
Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico recently published an abstract with colleagues,
http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/201103070108DOWJONESDJONLINE000011_univ.xml

"DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field "
that reveals very disturbing—even shocking—evidence that the THz waves generated by TSA scanners is significantly damaging the DNA of the people being directed through the machines, and the TSA workers that are in close proximity to the scanners throughout their workday.
http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/inside-tsa-scanners-how-terahertz-waves.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revigator

"And the bewildered herd is still believing
Everything we've been told from our birth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbMN6jueU1A
Hell they won't lie to me
http://www.naturalnews.com/030655_TSA_X-rays.html
Not on my own damn TV
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/02/michael-mann-cleared?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

But how much is a liar's word worth
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/googlewashing_revisited/
And what happened to peace on earth" --Willie Nelson

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/07/israel-keeping-ghaddafi-afloat/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/04/the-empire-strikes-out/

http://www.dailypaul.com/158871/us-to-spill-marine-blood-against-50000-pro-gaddafi-mercenaries-who-is-recruiting-funding-them-youll-never-guess
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=271737

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
http://www.bushstole04.com/Israel/zionist_scams.htm
http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/467/419/We_are_NOT_broke:_our_wealth_has_been_transferred,_in_the_greatest_heist_in_history,_from_the_workers_and_consumers_to_the_banks_and_the_portfolios_of_the_uber-rich._-_Michael_Moore..html

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=14213

Thanks for the discussion people and particularly Bugsy but I'm signing out now. All the best for the future. I hope I've been able to shed some light on the gene patent debate. Seeya!

Pharmaceutical Company Hiking Price Of Drug
That Prevents Premature Births From $10 to $1,500

By: malterwitty

Next week, the cost of preventing premature childbirth will skyrocket when a drug given to high-risk pregnant women goes from around $10 a dose to $1,500 a dose.

The drug, called Makena, which has been made cheaply for years and is given as a weekly shot, could make the total cost during a pregnancy as much as $30,000.

Why?

Because KV Pharmaceutical of St. Louis
recently won FDA approval to exclusively* sell Makena last month.

Read more:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/12/pharmaceutical-company-hiking-price-of-drug-that-prevents-premature-births-from-10-to-1500/

The Idiot Cycle: The Chemical Companies
That Cause Cancer Then Profit From Treating Cancer
By: Saladin

Looking at six companies, Dow Chemical, BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Astrazeneca (Syngenta), and Monsanto, Idiot Cycle exposes corporate-government collusion in the release of carcinogenic chemicals, but also reveals how some of the same chemical companies then profit from treating cancer. It’s a cycle only an idiot would tolerate.

Going further, much of the film then addresses genetically modified food and its potentially disastrous effect on health and the environment.

http://saladin-avoiceinthewilderness.blogspot.com/2011/03/perfect-storm-of-gmos-chemicals-and.html

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?
The History The US Government HOPES You Never Learn! http://whatreallyhappened.com

http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/2011/03/dark-side-of-devic-realm-rising.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-11-tsa-scans_N.htm

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/hacker-collective-anonymous-release-documents-proving-bank-america-committed-fraud-monday

http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110312D12JFF03.htm
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=14266
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/hintergrund-atomkraftwerks-fukushima-jahre-alter-meiler-mit-unruehmlicher-vergangenheit-1.1071229

Does this mean if we grant patents we will all be immortal? Pharmaceutical research is largely government funded so to argue that they should be able to hold patents is the ultimate exploitation of the free rider problem