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.