Bioperl: Re: Open Source and Bio questions

[Ewan Birney]

On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Clay Shirky wrote:

> > I really don't know what Craig is patenting, and wouldn't want to
> > misrepresent his plans.  Have you asked him?  He's a very open and
> > forthcoming kind of guy.
> 
> Sorry, didn't mean to focus on him per se, just picked Celera because
> they've just filed so many patents recently (and yes, I'm trying to
> talk with him as well). 
> 
> What I am trying to understand is what exactly does one own when one
> patents a genetic sequence? The press is very confused on this issue,
> and as I am thinking of writing about it, I want to try to understand
> the issues from the point of view of the fields practitoners.

This list probably has a mixture of practioners and non-practioners here.
What you really want to get hold of is a lawyer in a biotech company ;).
They are slippery customers...

Here is how I understand it...

People file a patent on sequences as a reagent to do things with
sequences, in particular retrieve that sequence from a database, 
retrieve the physical DNA with PCR or hybridisations. Notice that the
patent is not on "just the sequence" but on the *use* of the sequence
to retrieve the gene (either electronically or physically).


As doing virtually anything with the sequence with infringe this patent
(god knows what happens when people use sequences outside of the sequence
but on the same gene as the sequence that is patented to retrieve
something - the mind boggles) these patents effectively hold alot of power
over the use of the sequence. However, other people can get patents on the
sequence for other things: eg, that this sequence is diagnostic for heart
failure etc. etc. Then the two patent holders horsetrade as to how the
reagent should be taken forward. Most of the times this gets settled
quickly between large organisations.


I don't know of (but I would be **extremely** interested) what cases have
come to court and what precendents have been set as to how these patents
work.


As in all fields, the first patent is usually followed by a series of
other patents that effectively extend the life of the patent.


All in all I think it is a pretty crummy way of protecting intellectual
property on these things, and I don't feel that patenting gene sequences
for retrieval/identification is useful or should be allowed. Patenting
specific uses I think should be.


If you find out more stuff, can you post back here? (or at least to me)
I am sure we would all be interested in how this works out.


> 
> -clay
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ewan Birney. Work: +44 (0)1223 494992. Mobile: +44 (0)7970 151230
<birney@sanger.ac.uk>
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Users/birney/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

=========== Bioperl Project Mailing List Message Footer =======
Project URL: http://bio.perl.org/
For info about how to (un)subscribe, where messages are archived, etc:
http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/bcd/Perl/Bio/vsns-bcd-perl.html
====================================================================