HP3000-L Archives

February 2001, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Frank Gribbin <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Frank Gribbin <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:07:59 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
Interesting development.  There is apparently a difference in having a
contract claim to your own proteins, etc., versus having an ownership right
in a patent which claims the sequence of those proteins.

The researchers who found and sequenced (and filed a patent on) that guy's
unusual gene are the inventors and owners of the patent.  They have claimed
the sequence of that protein (and the gene making that protein) in isolated
form -- not in its natural form.  You can't patent a gene or protein in its
natural form -- you have to isolate it from the body or otherwise
manipulate it first.

That guy with the useful gene should have had those researchers sign a
contract giving him some of the proceeds the researchers will get if they
commercialize their patent.  Did he sign a release giving those doctors
control over his specimens?  Was that release "informed consent"?  In
California they have addressed this problem with a statute that gives
people some ownership rights to their own body materials in some
situations -- so people don't get taken advantage of.

Anyway -- the law is not on the side of the poor guy who probably signed
away his ownership of his own biological specimens -- the patent belongs to
the inventors who isolated the unusual protein.

And no, the patent owners can't sue that guy, because he is walking around
with his own genes/proteins in their natural state -- not in the isolated
form claimed by the researchers in their patent.

Moral of the story -- see your patent attorney before you sign anything!

This is not a legal opinion.

Frank


On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:42:00 -0500, Jim Phillips
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>See:
>
>http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,274155-412,00.shtml
>
>"The race to identify the human genetic make-up has been accompanied by
>another rush: to patent some of those genes just like the light bulb or the
>cotton gin. At least a thousand human genes already have been patented and
>thousands more are pending. Chances are, your genetic structure - your most
>private property - may well belong to someone else, 60 Minutes
Correspondent
>Morley Safer reports."
>
>
>Jim Phillips                           Information Systems Manager
>Email: [log in to unmask]     Therm-O-Link, Inc.
>Phone: 330-527-2124                         P. O. Box 285
>Fax:   330-527-2123                           10513 Freedom Street
>Web:   http://www.tolwire.com          Garrettsville, OH  44231

ATOM RSS1 RSS2