In this case, 60 Minutes made it very clear that the laboratory which patented the Cancer Gene have every intention of enforcing the patent, and in this case already effectively did so by preventing cancer research elsewhere and shutting it down with a "cease and desist" "request".

>>> <[log in to unmask]> 02/26 10:28 AM >>>
X-no-Archive:yes
Ironically, this may be in self-defense, with no intention of ever enforcing
the patent. Rather, this prevents someone else from patenting it, then suing
a large company for a nuisance fee. 

Years ago, IBM trademarked the string "YEAR2000". This caused a few days of
consternation on the mailing list of the same name, until someone pointed
out the preemptive nature of such a trademark. IBM prevented someone from
trademarking it and suing IBM or anyone else. 

I would be very interested in seeing an example of a patent on a discovered
gene enforced, as I doubt that, in this context, that has happened. I would
rather that such nonsense not be a good idea, but it is not that different
from a "copyleft" in one sense, in making something available for anyone's
use, so long as they don't claim it for their own. 

Greg Stigers 
http://www.cgiusa.com 
If I've understood this correctly, 60 Minutes should have as well. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Becker [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: OT: HTML display but prevent download of images

<snip>
Laboratories now routinely patent genes so that they might, say, own a
cancer gene, thus preventing any research or medication for that gene which,
even though it might save lives, is banned and can have a cease and desist
order.