Hacker News Reader

Comment by btilly | Hacker News Reader

I like to see signs of emerging sanity in the patent world. Possibly that will head us back to the sanity of killing lots and lots (hopefully all) software patents.

View on HN

Would this company have made the breast cancer detection procedure that they had a patent on if they did not have the ability to protect it with a patent?

In the software world, the case against patents is very strong. In biotech R&D costs can be in the millions or billions of dollars. It's a mistake to reflexively apply the hacker's justified aversion to patents to other fields.

A study conducted by Thomas Kepler, Colin Crossman, and Robert Cook-Deegan of Duke University found the patent in question "surprisingly broad" and that "if enforced [the patent] would have substantial implications for medical practice and scientific research" [1]. As a result the patent ended up stifling innovation, violating the legal justification for patents.

The arguments you provide may justify the existence of some patents, but certainly not this one.

[1] http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE62F5YR20100316

It's a mistake to reflexively apply the hacker's justified aversion to patents to other fields.

It may very well be true.

It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty. -- Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine in Against Intellectual Monopoly.

Against Intellectual Monopoly is a book that made the case against patents and copyrights in all of its form.

You can read the entire book for free at this website:

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...

I'm sympathetic to Boldrin's ideas, I just thought it an important objection to raise in the crowds that cheer for the demise of all intellectual property.

> Would this company have made the breast cancer detection procedure that they had a patent on if they did not have the ability to protect it with a patent?

According to my reading of the case, the company didn't invent a breast cancer procedure. Instead, they found a gene that has some involvement in breast cancer and tried to claim suppressing said gene. They lost because their patent didn't disclose or claim anything relevant to suppressing said gene.

IFRC, the judge said that they didn't invent anything, which they pretty much conceded. Since you can't patent discoveries, only uses of discoveries to do something, they lost.

The judge also slams them for trying to patent the scientific method (see either page 152 or 153, if I remember correctly).

PDF: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010-3-29-AMPvUSPTO-Opinion...

This company may not have. But society in general would have. http://bit.ly/UX90n is a good econtalk which talks about patents, competition and innovation and argues that patents are detrimental to society.

Just a heads up, seeing as you're pretty new. URL shorteners aren't advocated or necessary here on HN.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.htm...

You are not adding up the opportunities missed. Who would have done work, but fears to? Who, if the patent were enforced, would have been unable to advance the state of the art?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com