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:
On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 2:41:10 PM UTC-4, John Griessen wrote:
On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 2:41:10 PM UTC-4, John Griessen wrote:
On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 2:41:10 PM UTC-4, John Griessen wrote:
-- 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
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/diybio/-/5tE-wIVm-FcJ.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment