Re: [DIYbio] Re: DIYbio projects

One of the idiocies of patent law is that yes, you can patent unaltered,
wild DNA.

And Avery: Indeed, technically if you publish something, then that
establishes a form of "prior art", which in the US means you'd have the
right to patent and someone else would be barred from stealing your work.

In practise, can you afford better lawyers than them? Don't, ever, rely
on patent office people to properly establish whether prior art exists.
A patent lawyer (in Australia, I believe/recall) once patented the wheel
to prove how easily exploited the system is.

There are patents on the most stunningly obvious or
obviously-preexisting things. There are patents on things invented by
others, not invented at all, or simply scribbled idly into the margins
of a mass-patent application. There are patents on hundreds of unrelated
DNA sequences at once, when technically a patent would be required for each.

Don't assume common sense, don't assume the rules will be followed, and
don't think you can win against a patent troll, because they have patent
law (a system set up to establish unreasonable monopolies by nature) on
their side from the moment they file first.

So, I always assume that it's a predatory system to be carefully
skirted. Instead of relying on publishing of an idea, if possible I'll
implement it first to fully establish a realised "prior art". I wish I
didn't feel this was necessary, because I'd far rather work out in the
open from the get-go.

On 05/06/12 21:48, Ravi wrote:
> Interesting conversation on IP. While as far as DIYbio, one person, doing a
> patented protocol at home is not going to be sued, someone selling kits do
> the same protocol opens themselves up to risk. Ultimately, to spread
> biology and DIYbio we need low cost, intuitive "kits" for people to get
> started. These will have to be completely based upon expired or
> non-patented methods.
>
> Its unfortunate the amount of IP in the biology field. For example, tests
> using LAMP could easily be implemented for DIYbio - users can accurately,
> easily test for a gene/disease/virus isothermally and detect the results of
> the test visibly. Unfortunately patents block anyone from providing easy
> kits to do so (which is what it will take to spread to "masses").
>
> As far as DNA "parts" how can these be patented - especially if there from
> organisms e.g. unaltered Taq enzyme, GFP, promoters, terminators etc.?
> These should be open domain?
>
> Ravi
>
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 2:41:10 PM UTC-4, John Griessen wrote:
>>
>> Simon wrote: Patent lawsuits are about people selling other
>> people's intellectual property, not using it.
>>
>>
>> On 06/05/2012 10:21 AM, Cathal Garvey wrote:
>>> Yes, I can "DIY" my own proteins at home for lulz, and nobody will care
>>> if I'm breaking patents.
>>>
>>> What about if I give away/sell the plasmids, allowing everyone to break
>>> the patents, and undercut the companies that currently live on
>>> artificial scarcity, imposed by the patents?
>>>
>>> Then I get sued. Not only that, their attention turns to derivatives of
>>> the method, to cut off other problems before they appear.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Instead, we come up with "Free-Libre Open Source" DNA and methods, which
>>> can be infinitely derivatised without fear of patent-trolling. It's
>>> elementary, and obvious: this is where we're headed, and distractions
>>> down patent-trollable dead-ends will only waste a lot of our time and
>>> money as a community.
>>
>> Yes, finding "just as good" non-patented methods, then locking them open
>> somehow, (publishing solid prior art), would be a better test
>> of open/free-licensing than for manufactured things,
>> since it is in the process patent realm. I've not heard any talk of
>> that in the open hardware crowd.
>>
>> What kind of prior art documenting do you have in mind, Cathal?
>>
>> John Griessen
>>
>
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 2:41:10 PM UTC-4, John Griessen wrote:
>>
>> Simon wrote: Patent lawsuits are about people selling other
>> people's intellectual property, not using it.
>>
>>
>> On 06/05/2012 10:21 AM, Cathal Garvey wrote:
>>> Yes, I can "DIY" my own proteins at home for lulz, and nobody will care
>>> if I'm breaking patents.
>>>
>>> What about if I give away/sell the plasmids, allowing everyone to break
>>> the patents, and undercut the companies that currently live on
>>> artificial scarcity, imposed by the patents?
>>>
>>> Then I get sued. Not only that, their attention turns to derivatives of
>>> the method, to cut off other problems before they appear.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Instead, we come up with "Free-Libre Open Source" DNA and methods, which
>>> can be infinitely derivatised without fear of patent-trolling. It's
>>> elementary, and obvious: this is where we're headed, and distractions
>>> down patent-trollable dead-ends will only waste a lot of our time and
>>> money as a community.
>>
>> Yes, finding "just as good" non-patented methods, then locking them open
>> somehow, (publishing solid prior art), would be a better test
>> of open/free-licensing than for manufactured things,
>> since it is in the process patent realm. I've not heard any talk of
>> that in the open hardware crowd.
>>
>> What kind of prior art documenting do you have in mind, Cathal?
>>
>> John Griessen
>>
>
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 2:41:10 PM UTC-4, John Griessen wrote:
>>
>> Simon wrote: Patent lawsuits are about people selling other
>> people's intellectual property, not using it.
>>
>>
>> On 06/05/2012 10:21 AM, Cathal Garvey wrote:
>>> Yes, I can "DIY" my own proteins at home for lulz, and nobody will care
>>> if I'm breaking patents.
>>>
>>> What about if I give away/sell the plasmids, allowing everyone to break
>>> the patents, and undercut the companies that currently live on
>>> artificial scarcity, imposed by the patents?
>>>
>>> Then I get sued. Not only that, their attention turns to derivatives of
>>> the method, to cut off other problems before they appear.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Instead, we come up with "Free-Libre Open Source" DNA and methods, which
>>> can be infinitely derivatised without fear of patent-trolling. It's
>>> elementary, and obvious: this is where we're headed, and distractions
>>> down patent-trollable dead-ends will only waste a lot of our time and
>>> money as a community.
>>
>> Yes, finding "just as good" non-patented methods, then locking them open
>> somehow, (publishing solid prior art), would be a better test
>> of open/free-licensing than for manufactured things,
>> since it is in the process patent realm. I've not heard any talk of
>> that in the open hardware crowd.
>>
>> What kind of prior art documenting do you have in mind, Cathal?
>>
>> John Griessen
>>
>
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 2:41:10 PM UTC-4, John Griessen wrote:
>>
>> Simon wrote: Patent lawsuits are about people selling other
>> people's intellectual property, not using it.
>>
>>
>> On 06/05/2012 10:21 AM, Cathal Garvey wrote:
>>> Yes, I can "DIY" my own proteins at home for lulz, and nobody will care
>>> if I'm breaking patents.
>>>
>>> What about if I give away/sell the plasmids, allowing everyone to break
>>> the patents, and undercut the companies that currently live on
>>> artificial scarcity, imposed by the patents?
>>>
>>> Then I get sued. Not only that, their attention turns to derivatives of
>>> the method, to cut off other problems before they appear.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Instead, we come up with "Free-Libre Open Source" DNA and methods, which
>>> can be infinitely derivatised without fear of patent-trolling. It's
>>> elementary, and obvious: this is where we're headed, and distractions
>>> down patent-trollable dead-ends will only waste a lot of our time and
>>> money as a community.
>>
>> Yes, finding "just as good" non-patented methods, then locking them open
>> somehow, (publishing solid prior art), would be a better test
>> of open/free-licensing than for manufactured things,
>> since it is in the process patent realm. I've not heard any talk of
>> that in the open hardware crowd.
>>
>> What kind of prior art documenting do you have in mind, Cathal?
>>
>> John Griessen
>>
>

--
www.indiebiotech.com
twitter.com/onetruecathal
joindiaspora.com/u/cathalgarvey
PGP Public Key: http://bit.ly/CathalGKey

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.