How science is shackled by intellectual property

[HuckleB]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/26/science-shackles-intellectual-property

"The idea of ownership is ubiquitous. Title deeds establish and protect ownership of our houses, while security of property is as important to the proprietors of Tesco and Sainsbury's as it is to their customers. However, there is a profound problem when it comes to so-called intellectual property (IP) – which requires a strong lead from government, and for which independent advice has never been more urgently required. The David Nutt affair has illustrated very well the importance of objective analysis of complex social issues.

The myth is that IP rights are as important as our rights in castles, cars and corn oil. IP is supposedly intended to encourage inventors and the investment needed to bring their products to the clinic and marketplace. In reality, patents often suppress invention rather than promote it: drugs are "evergreened" when patents are on the verge of running out – companies buy up the patents of potential rivals in order to prevent them being turned into products. Moreover, the prices charged, especially for pharmaceuticals, are often grossly in excess of those required to cover costs and make reasonable profits.

IP rights are beginning to permeate every area of scientific endeavour. Even in universities, science and innovation, which have already been paid for out of the public purse, are privatised and resold to the public via patents acquired by commercial interests. The drive to commercialise science has overtaken not only applied research but also "blue-skies" research, such that even the pure quest for knowledge is subverted by the need for profit.

For example, it is estimated that some 20% of individual human genes have been patented already or have been filed for patenting. As a result, research on certain genes is largely restricted to the companies that hold the patents, and tests involving them are marketed at prohibitive prices. We believe that this poses a very real danger to the development of science for the public good.

..."

------------------------------------------------------


So the great "free market" is not exactly serving humanity very well, yet again.

[Gman]

1. They said "public good"

That's socialism!

[HuckleB]

2. Ouch!

:hi:

[stray cat]

3. If you make something with your hands by yourself is it yours?

[HuckleB]

4. That might depend on what you use to make the thing with...

... I'm not sure what human genes anyone has made with their hands. Are they claiming to have made them with their genitals?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Go2Peace]

6. We have always had a principle of public domain and it has worked

If companies have their way patent length would be increased substantially, the result would slow progress. Copywrites were originally allowed for 28 years, now they are up to 110 years. So literature can be monopolized by a company long after the author dies.
In fact there are works that were public domain that are now owned by companies again and re-profited from thanks to the new laws. Imagine, something owned by the people for posterity, like a book of poems, and companies expanded the original length, then purchased the writes and took them back from the public.

[Go2Peace]

7. Imagine if a company had been able to monopolize the internet for 50 years

Original patent and copywrite laws were fine and the owners profited and most never complained. It was only when the corporations got big on it that all of a sudden they must seize the rights as long as possible.

[Posteritatis]

9. The problem is some false claims on the "by yourself" part

Anyone who has patent on genes that exist in the wild - or, you know, me - is kidding himself. Patenting something actually original? That's fine. The fact that a quarter or so of my genome is sufficiently owned by various companies that it would interfere with my ability to get screened for some ailments for fear of lawsuits? That's an obscenity.

[Sinti]

5. Science is one of the main places where you see the limitations

of our form of capitalism. The cost/benefit analysis doesn't consider human life (or any other kind of life) as the primary benefit of the concern. It's a weight of how much money for research versus how much potential profit it may make.

Really, it hurts everyone, even those who profit tremendously in coin, as they may suffer a disease, have a child or grandchild that suffers, or simply never receive the benefit that pure research might bring for themselves - because there was no real profit in coin to be made from it. Take cleaning up our water, and reclaiming brown-fields as a non-medical example - no real money to be made so it doesn't get done.

This is one more reason why Open Source matters. As a human race we're going to have to come to terms with this, if we want to survive. Our technology far outstrips our civility, and respect for humanity. If we don't stop staring into this black hole we will likely die off as a species, in the long run, by our own hand.

[RoyGBiv]

8. Kick

Wish I could recommend this a few more times.

I've been pounding this drum for a long time. People think I'm crazy. I may be, but not about this.

[Zodiak]

10. You know what is really sad?

The greatest perpetrator of patenting genes is the University of California. In fact, it was this University that lobbied to get genes "patentable" in the first place.

Slippery slopes and all.

[Meldread]

11. Just one thing: This has nothing to do with the free market.

The article is 100% spot on. However, your comment is dead wrong. The free market is the ABSENCE of government intervention. The whole concept of Intellectual Property only exists BECAUSE of government intervention. Of course, many capitalists and free market advocates support the notion of intellectual property and lump it in with private property. However, in so doing, they violate their own philosophy.

In a real free market, there would be no such thing as intellectual property, patents, copyrights and trademarks. Once you share something with someone else it effectively becomes co-owned. So if you don't want someone to steal your song, you'd have to sing it in the shower with sound proof walls. However, the moment you put it on a CD and sell it then the buyer has the right to do whatever they want with it - even share it with others. The same thing goes for big pharma. You make a new medication, well you better not give it out because the moment you do it becomes generic.

Many would say this would crush the incentive to innovate, and thus support the concept of intellectual property. I don't buy that argument: So long as there is demand for something, it will be made. Similar to how the internet has wrecked havoc on the music industry the destruction of the government granted rights of monopoly would spark a revolution in science and technology, opening it up to whomever can put the best ideas on the market first. They would enjoy a natural monopoly for awhile, but eventually they would face competition. The whole concept of IP rights was to ensure that this "natural monopoly" took place before things became public. However, as very well articulated in the article people have found ways to manipulate the government created system.

When the government entered the market place, granting a monopoly, it created serious problems. For one the companies in question don't want to give it up. They hire lobbyists to ensure that they get more and more control... right down to the point where they're actually able to patent individual genes in the human genome.

No, this has nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with the fact that the government has inserted itself into the marketplace.

[joshcryer]

12. IP could exist via consortiums, it would just have to turn into a monopoly which free market...

...advocates do not think is possible in the free market.

However, signing up to an IP consortium can lend you lots of benefits, and indeed, how it works with patent and copyright law is mostly voluntary. It just needs to be extended a bit further (so that all who agree to copyright and patent law agree not to associate with anyone who breaks those laws).

[Meldread]

13. This is true, but it is in no way as effective as having the government craft laws...........

...that allow legal monopolies. The difference between a consortium and a government, is that a consortium can't throw you in jail for deciding not to join. They can certainly use other methods against you, perhaps, in the same way Wal-Mart lowers its prices to drive Mom and Pop Shops out of business.

However, the end result is this: whatever the consortium does it has to by and large benefit their consumers. This means they have to either deliver it more effectively, at cheaper prices, or provide some additional side service.

The moment that an outside competitor can offer something to -their- consumers that the consortium cannot or will not, then they begin to lose their competitive edge.

What the government does is impose legal repercussions onto all those who violate the patent. The consortium's actions benefit the consumers at least in the short-term.

In the case of science and IP you'd see people making actual use of the data they'd otherwise lay claim to - use that can be beneficial to society as a whole. Right now, they make their discovery, claim it as IP, then move on to the next and make their "profit" by licensing out their IP. Without IP laws you'd not only see things translating directly into things that people can use (such as genetic drug therapies), but you'd see a much greater number of discoveries and applications. The reason for this is because you'd eliminate one of the huge hurtles involved for actually conducting the studies and tests to begin with: securing the IP. This in turn lowers the bar of entry to those wanting to break into the field.