<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_29_2355233</id>
	<title>US District Judge Rules Gene Patents Invalid</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1269874560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>shriphani writes <i>"A US judge has ruled that Myriad Genetics' <a href="http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-womens-rights/patents-breast-cancer-genes-ruled-invalid-aclupubpat-case">breast cancer gene patent is invalid</a>. Hopefully this will go a long way in ensuring that patents on genes do not stand in the way of research. From the article: 'Patents on genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer are invalid, ruled a New York federal court today. The precedent-setting ruling marks the first time a court has found patents on genes unlawful and calls into question the validity of patents now held on approximately 2,000 human genes.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>shriphani writes " A US judge has ruled that Myriad Genetics ' breast cancer gene patent is invalid .
Hopefully this will go a long way in ensuring that patents on genes do not stand in the way of research .
From the article : 'Patents on genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer are invalid , ruled a New York federal court today .
The precedent-setting ruling marks the first time a court has found patents on genes unlawful and calls into question the validity of patents now held on approximately 2,000 human genes .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shriphani writes "A US judge has ruled that Myriad Genetics' breast cancer gene patent is invalid.
Hopefully this will go a long way in ensuring that patents on genes do not stand in the way of research.
From the article: 'Patents on genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer are invalid, ruled a New York federal court today.
The precedent-setting ruling marks the first time a court has found patents on genes unlawful and calls into question the validity of patents now held on approximately 2,000 human genes.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31674256</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>Vesvvi</author>
	<datestamp>1269974940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a bad feeling that this ruling will just shift the focus of patents, without changing their effective targets.</p><p>
If a kit for diagnosis etc can be patented, the net result is unchanged: the knowledge remains locked-down under the control of the patent-holder.  While this wouldn't be a huge problem if the generation of a detection kit was a novel work worthy of protection, the reality is that genetics as a field is a rigorously predictable, formulaic, and mathematical study.</p><p>
The techniques for working with genetics are very well-understood, and it will likely be a computer algorithm (and not a new one) that designs the tools (DNA primers etc) for performing a particular diagnostic test.  Why should that be patentable?  At best, it certainly isn't non-obvious, and I would argue that when a machine (which you didn't invent) is designing your invention, you certainly shouldn't be able to claim it as your own!</p><p>
Of course, there should be room for patenting truly new genetic tools, such as a new type of DNA-binding fluorescent probe, but such inventions come around once or twice a year.  The hundreds or thousands of unique gene-detection methods developed per year which use that new tool should <b>not</b> be patentable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a bad feeling that this ruling will just shift the focus of patents , without changing their effective targets .
If a kit for diagnosis etc can be patented , the net result is unchanged : the knowledge remains locked-down under the control of the patent-holder .
While this would n't be a huge problem if the generation of a detection kit was a novel work worthy of protection , the reality is that genetics as a field is a rigorously predictable , formulaic , and mathematical study .
The techniques for working with genetics are very well-understood , and it will likely be a computer algorithm ( and not a new one ) that designs the tools ( DNA primers etc ) for performing a particular diagnostic test .
Why should that be patentable ?
At best , it certainly is n't non-obvious , and I would argue that when a machine ( which you did n't invent ) is designing your invention , you certainly should n't be able to claim it as your own !
Of course , there should be room for patenting truly new genetic tools , such as a new type of DNA-binding fluorescent probe , but such inventions come around once or twice a year .
The hundreds or thousands of unique gene-detection methods developed per year which use that new tool should not be patentable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a bad feeling that this ruling will just shift the focus of patents, without changing their effective targets.
If a kit for diagnosis etc can be patented, the net result is unchanged: the knowledge remains locked-down under the control of the patent-holder.
While this wouldn't be a huge problem if the generation of a detection kit was a novel work worthy of protection, the reality is that genetics as a field is a rigorously predictable, formulaic, and mathematical study.
The techniques for working with genetics are very well-understood, and it will likely be a computer algorithm (and not a new one) that designs the tools (DNA primers etc) for performing a particular diagnostic test.
Why should that be patentable?
At best, it certainly isn't non-obvious, and I would argue that when a machine (which you didn't invent) is designing your invention, you certainly shouldn't be able to claim it as your own!
Of course, there should be room for patenting truly new genetic tools, such as a new type of DNA-binding fluorescent probe, but such inventions come around once or twice a year.
The hundreds or thousands of unique gene-detection methods developed per year which use that new tool should not be patentable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666382</id>
	<title>Chakrabarty case</title>
	<author>Beerdood</author>
	<datestamp>1269882840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

This ruling reminds me of a segment I saw in a documentary (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/quotes" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow"> the corporation </a> [imdb.com] - scroll down for quote).  It always shocked me that something like a gene or life form could be patented simply by discovering it.  You didn't invent it, why should you own the rights to it?  If you create a brand new gene then you should  you be able to profit for it, but for a gene that already exists?  It may seem a bit off topic, but this is case is what paved the way for gene patenting - the ability to patent anything biological (save for a full human).  I hope this case paves the way to new patent laws on biology.<p><div class="quote"><p> The Chakrabarty case is one of the great judicial moments in world history. And the public was totally unaware it was actually happening as a process was being engaged. General Electric and Professor Chakrabarty went to the patent office with a little microbe that eats up oil spills. They said they had modified this microbe in the laboratory, and therefore it was an invention. The patent office and the U.S. Government took at look at this "invention"; they said, 'No way. The patent statutes don't cover living things. This is not an invention". Turned down. Then, General Electric and Doctor Chakrabarty appealed to the U.S. Customs Court of Appeal. And, to everyone's surprise, by a 3-to-2 decision, they overrode the patent office. They said, 'This microbe looks more like a detergent, or a reagent, than a horse or a honeybee". I laugh because they didn't understand basic biology; it looked like a chemical to them. Had it had an antenna, or eyes, or wings, or legs, it would never have crossed their table and been patented. Then the patent office appealed. And what the public should realize now is the patent office was very clear that you can't patent life. My organization provided the main amicus curiae brief. "If you allow the patent on this microbe," we argued, "it means that without any congressional guidance or public discussion, corporations will own the blueprints of life". When they made the decision, we lost by 5-to-4, and Chief Justice Warren Berger said, "Sure, some of these are big issues but we think this is a small decision". 7 Years later the U.S. Patent Office issued a 1 sentence decree, "You can patent anything in the world that's alive, except a full-birth human being". We've all been hearing about the announcement that we have mapped the human genome. But what the public doesn't know is now there's this great race by genomic companies and biotech companies and life science companies to find the treasure in the map. The treasure are the individual genes that make up the blueprint of the human race. Every time they capture a gene and isolate it, these biotech companies claim it as intellectual property. The breast cancer gene, the cystic fibrosis gene, it goes on and on and on. If this goes unchallenged in the world community within less than 10 years a handful of global companies will own, directly, or through license, the actual genes that make up the evolution of our species. And they're now beginning to patent the genomes of every other creature on this planet. In the age of biology the politics is going to sort out between those who believe life first has intrinsic value, and therefore we should choose technologies and commercial venues that honor the intrinsic value. And then we're going to have people who believe, "Look, life is a simple utility, it's commercial fare", and they will line up with the idea to let the marketplace be the ultimate arbiter of all of the age of biology.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This ruling reminds me of a segment I saw in a documentary ( the corporation [ imdb.com ] - scroll down for quote ) .
It always shocked me that something like a gene or life form could be patented simply by discovering it .
You did n't invent it , why should you own the rights to it ?
If you create a brand new gene then you should you be able to profit for it , but for a gene that already exists ?
It may seem a bit off topic , but this is case is what paved the way for gene patenting - the ability to patent anything biological ( save for a full human ) .
I hope this case paves the way to new patent laws on biology .
The Chakrabarty case is one of the great judicial moments in world history .
And the public was totally unaware it was actually happening as a process was being engaged .
General Electric and Professor Chakrabarty went to the patent office with a little microbe that eats up oil spills .
They said they had modified this microbe in the laboratory , and therefore it was an invention .
The patent office and the U.S. Government took at look at this " invention " ; they said , 'No way .
The patent statutes do n't cover living things .
This is not an invention " .
Turned down .
Then , General Electric and Doctor Chakrabarty appealed to the U.S. Customs Court of Appeal .
And , to everyone 's surprise , by a 3-to-2 decision , they overrode the patent office .
They said , 'This microbe looks more like a detergent , or a reagent , than a horse or a honeybee " .
I laugh because they did n't understand basic biology ; it looked like a chemical to them .
Had it had an antenna , or eyes , or wings , or legs , it would never have crossed their table and been patented .
Then the patent office appealed .
And what the public should realize now is the patent office was very clear that you ca n't patent life .
My organization provided the main amicus curiae brief .
" If you allow the patent on this microbe , " we argued , " it means that without any congressional guidance or public discussion , corporations will own the blueprints of life " .
When they made the decision , we lost by 5-to-4 , and Chief Justice Warren Berger said , " Sure , some of these are big issues but we think this is a small decision " .
7 Years later the U.S. Patent Office issued a 1 sentence decree , " You can patent anything in the world that 's alive , except a full-birth human being " .
We 've all been hearing about the announcement that we have mapped the human genome .
But what the public does n't know is now there 's this great race by genomic companies and biotech companies and life science companies to find the treasure in the map .
The treasure are the individual genes that make up the blueprint of the human race .
Every time they capture a gene and isolate it , these biotech companies claim it as intellectual property .
The breast cancer gene , the cystic fibrosis gene , it goes on and on and on .
If this goes unchallenged in the world community within less than 10 years a handful of global companies will own , directly , or through license , the actual genes that make up the evolution of our species .
And they 're now beginning to patent the genomes of every other creature on this planet .
In the age of biology the politics is going to sort out between those who believe life first has intrinsic value , and therefore we should choose technologies and commercial venues that honor the intrinsic value .
And then we 're going to have people who believe , " Look , life is a simple utility , it 's commercial fare " , and they will line up with the idea to let the marketplace be the ultimate arbiter of all of the age of biology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

This ruling reminds me of a segment I saw in a documentary ( the corporation  [imdb.com] - scroll down for quote).
It always shocked me that something like a gene or life form could be patented simply by discovering it.
You didn't invent it, why should you own the rights to it?
If you create a brand new gene then you should  you be able to profit for it, but for a gene that already exists?
It may seem a bit off topic, but this is case is what paved the way for gene patenting - the ability to patent anything biological (save for a full human).
I hope this case paves the way to new patent laws on biology.
The Chakrabarty case is one of the great judicial moments in world history.
And the public was totally unaware it was actually happening as a process was being engaged.
General Electric and Professor Chakrabarty went to the patent office with a little microbe that eats up oil spills.
They said they had modified this microbe in the laboratory, and therefore it was an invention.
The patent office and the U.S. Government took at look at this "invention"; they said, 'No way.
The patent statutes don't cover living things.
This is not an invention".
Turned down.
Then, General Electric and Doctor Chakrabarty appealed to the U.S. Customs Court of Appeal.
And, to everyone's surprise, by a 3-to-2 decision, they overrode the patent office.
They said, 'This microbe looks more like a detergent, or a reagent, than a horse or a honeybee".
I laugh because they didn't understand basic biology; it looked like a chemical to them.
Had it had an antenna, or eyes, or wings, or legs, it would never have crossed their table and been patented.
Then the patent office appealed.
And what the public should realize now is the patent office was very clear that you can't patent life.
My organization provided the main amicus curiae brief.
"If you allow the patent on this microbe," we argued, "it means that without any congressional guidance or public discussion, corporations will own the blueprints of life".
When they made the decision, we lost by 5-to-4, and Chief Justice Warren Berger said, "Sure, some of these are big issues but we think this is a small decision".
7 Years later the U.S. Patent Office issued a 1 sentence decree, "You can patent anything in the world that's alive, except a full-birth human being".
We've all been hearing about the announcement that we have mapped the human genome.
But what the public doesn't know is now there's this great race by genomic companies and biotech companies and life science companies to find the treasure in the map.
The treasure are the individual genes that make up the blueprint of the human race.
Every time they capture a gene and isolate it, these biotech companies claim it as intellectual property.
The breast cancer gene, the cystic fibrosis gene, it goes on and on and on.
If this goes unchallenged in the world community within less than 10 years a handful of global companies will own, directly, or through license, the actual genes that make up the evolution of our species.
And they're now beginning to patent the genomes of every other creature on this planet.
In the age of biology the politics is going to sort out between those who believe life first has intrinsic value, and therefore we should choose technologies and commercial venues that honor the intrinsic value.
And then we're going to have people who believe, "Look, life is a simple utility, it's commercial fare", and they will line up with the idea to let the marketplace be the ultimate arbiter of all of the age of biology.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667210</id>
	<title>Huzzah!</title>
	<author>hallux.sinister</author>
	<datestamp>1269891840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is great news for me!  With all patent concerns swept away, surely the injunction against my cells copying their own genetic code will be lifted, and they can resume their normal mitotic and meiotic activities!  This is really wonderful because since the question came up, they have been unable to reproduce, (legally) and consequently, I have been feeling really sick lately.  What a breath of fresh air!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is great news for me !
With all patent concerns swept away , surely the injunction against my cells copying their own genetic code will be lifted , and they can resume their normal mitotic and meiotic activities !
This is really wonderful because since the question came up , they have been unable to reproduce , ( legally ) and consequently , I have been feeling really sick lately .
What a breath of fresh air !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is great news for me!
With all patent concerns swept away, surely the injunction against my cells copying their own genetic code will be lifted, and they can resume their normal mitotic and meiotic activities!
This is really wonderful because since the question came up, they have been unable to reproduce, (legally) and consequently, I have been feeling really sick lately.
What a breath of fresh air!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31668546</id>
	<title>no, not in accord with science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there are two steps in ID: one showing that a particular region of DNA is causally associated with a disease, and then sequencing the dna.<br>with modern technology, once you know a particular gene is associated with a disease, methods to test for the diseased gene are "obvious", eg if you know about multiplex RT qPCR or things like that</p><p>what is missing in this discussion is that myriad was making huge, huge sums off a obvious test</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there are two steps in ID : one showing that a particular region of DNA is causally associated with a disease , and then sequencing the dna.with modern technology , once you know a particular gene is associated with a disease , methods to test for the diseased gene are " obvious " , eg if you know about multiplex RT qPCR or things like thatwhat is missing in this discussion is that myriad was making huge , huge sums off a obvious test</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are two steps in ID: one showing that a particular region of DNA is causally associated with a disease, and then sequencing the dna.with modern technology, once you know a particular gene is associated with a disease, methods to test for the diseased gene are "obvious", eg if you know about multiplex RT qPCR or things like thatwhat is missing in this discussion is that myriad was making huge, huge sums off a obvious test</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667710</id>
	<title>the true inventor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269941340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be discovered, a gene must first be manufactured by a living being.<br>That living being, having manufactured the prototype, would be the only possible party to lay claim.</p><p>Thus, the first human to ever get breast cancer would be the only one who could legally file for a patent on it.</p><p>I'm pretty sure that the deadline for that has expired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be discovered , a gene must first be manufactured by a living being.That living being , having manufactured the prototype , would be the only possible party to lay claim.Thus , the first human to ever get breast cancer would be the only one who could legally file for a patent on it.I 'm pretty sure that the deadline for that has expired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be discovered, a gene must first be manufactured by a living being.That living being, having manufactured the prototype, would be the only possible party to lay claim.Thus, the first human to ever get breast cancer would be the only one who could legally file for a patent on it.I'm pretty sure that the deadline for that has expired.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666250</id>
	<title>Does Myriad really "own" the gene?</title>
	<author>El Fantasmo</author>
	<datestamp>1269881280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some one correct me if I'm wrong...

Doesn't Myriad Genetics have a patent on a method for testing or gene manipulation or something of that sort, NOT the gene itself?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some one correct me if I 'm wrong.. . Does n't Myriad Genetics have a patent on a method for testing or gene manipulation or something of that sort , NOT the gene itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some one correct me if I'm wrong...

Doesn't Myriad Genetics have a patent on a method for testing or gene manipulation or something of that sort, NOT the gene itself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667340</id>
	<title>Patents are for something you create, not catalog</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1269980280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since the people patenting genes aren't creating them, even by accident, I've never understood how they could possible claim a patent on them. (Or copyright, or trademark.)<br><br>Now if it was a man made gene sequence, that would be another story, but even then, I'd say copyright the new gene you made, and maybe patent the process if it's new.<br><br>As to the Rx companies that whine "we can't make new drugs if we don't have a patent on the gene", well, how do I put this lightly...<br>You are so full of sh## it's unbelievable! You patent the new drug you greedy lying morons!<br><br>Ok, I'll end this rant for now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the people patenting genes are n't creating them , even by accident , I 've never understood how they could possible claim a patent on them .
( Or copyright , or trademark .
) Now if it was a man made gene sequence , that would be another story , but even then , I 'd say copyright the new gene you made , and maybe patent the process if it 's new.As to the Rx companies that whine " we ca n't make new drugs if we do n't have a patent on the gene " , well , how do I put this lightly...You are so full of sh # # it 's unbelievable !
You patent the new drug you greedy lying morons ! Ok , I 'll end this rant for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the people patenting genes aren't creating them, even by accident, I've never understood how they could possible claim a patent on them.
(Or copyright, or trademark.
)Now if it was a man made gene sequence, that would be another story, but even then, I'd say copyright the new gene you made, and maybe patent the process if it's new.As to the Rx companies that whine "we can't make new drugs if we don't have a patent on the gene", well, how do I put this lightly...You are so full of sh## it's unbelievable!
You patent the new drug you greedy lying morons!Ok, I'll end this rant for now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31670644</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget GMOs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269964020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's different... There are basically 3 types of patents.. Business patents, Plant patents, and I happen to forget the 3rd now. A plant patent is valid IIRC for 20 years, and it covers the creation of a new plant. IE&gt; If you were to cross-bread a red rose with a yellow tulip and created a new type of plant (an orange tuse? rolip?) you could patent the resulting plant for the time period a Plant patent covers. If you developed a fungus resistant version of a plant, and a fungus resistant version doesn't already exist in nature or already covered under a patent, you can patent it under the Plant patent as it's a new breed of plant. That's how the patents work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's different... There are basically 3 types of patents.. Business patents , Plant patents , and I happen to forget the 3rd now .
A plant patent is valid IIRC for 20 years , and it covers the creation of a new plant .
IE &gt; If you were to cross-bread a red rose with a yellow tulip and created a new type of plant ( an orange tuse ?
rolip ? ) you could patent the resulting plant for the time period a Plant patent covers .
If you developed a fungus resistant version of a plant , and a fungus resistant version does n't already exist in nature or already covered under a patent , you can patent it under the Plant patent as it 's a new breed of plant .
That 's how the patents work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's different... There are basically 3 types of patents.. Business patents, Plant patents, and I happen to forget the 3rd now.
A plant patent is valid IIRC for 20 years, and it covers the creation of a new plant.
IE&gt; If you were to cross-bread a red rose with a yellow tulip and created a new type of plant (an orange tuse?
rolip?) you could patent the resulting plant for the time period a Plant patent covers.
If you developed a fungus resistant version of a plant, and a fungus resistant version doesn't already exist in nature or already covered under a patent, you can patent it under the Plant patent as it's a new breed of plant.
That's how the patents work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666654</id>
	<title>This will lower medical costs</title>
	<author>guyminuslife</author>
	<datestamp>1269885840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, who wants to have to pay royalties whenever they get cancer?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , who wants to have to pay royalties whenever they get cancer ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, who wants to have to pay royalties whenever they get cancer?
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666630</id>
	<title>Re:Natural Resource</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1269885540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who modded this up?  There's a real conversation to be had here, and stupid analogies don't help.</p><p>The issue is: drugs have to go through expensive clinical trials before they are legal to be sold.  Currently, drug companies pay for these trials because they are guaranteed exclusivity over the manufacturer of the drug should it turn out to be viable.  Gene patents are an extension of this process, they give exclusivity to the drug company to develop the drug to target the gene.  Without them, gene research is unlikely to lead to drugs to treat disease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who modded this up ?
There 's a real conversation to be had here , and stupid analogies do n't help.The issue is : drugs have to go through expensive clinical trials before they are legal to be sold .
Currently , drug companies pay for these trials because they are guaranteed exclusivity over the manufacturer of the drug should it turn out to be viable .
Gene patents are an extension of this process , they give exclusivity to the drug company to develop the drug to target the gene .
Without them , gene research is unlikely to lead to drugs to treat disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who modded this up?
There's a real conversation to be had here, and stupid analogies don't help.The issue is: drugs have to go through expensive clinical trials before they are legal to be sold.
Currently, drug companies pay for these trials because they are guaranteed exclusivity over the manufacturer of the drug should it turn out to be viable.
Gene patents are an extension of this process, they give exclusivity to the drug company to develop the drug to target the gene.
Without them, gene research is unlikely to lead to drugs to treat disease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666294</id>
	<title>An almost insignificant start</title>
	<author>RobinEggs</author>
	<datestamp>1269881880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I suppose it's nice that someone finally ruled you can't patent the genetic code itself, but the net change will be practically nothing.<br> <br>
If they can still patent every single technique and tool involved in examining, testing, or isolating the gene then who gives a crap if they pretend they own the code? We'll still end up reinventing the wheel every time we'd like to look at any known gene; either that or we'll pay thousands of dollars in patent fees per procedure. I suppose it's nice that some district court judge finally made the biggest No Flipping Duh ruling of the genetic age, but I think it changes very little in practical terms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I suppose it 's nice that someone finally ruled you ca n't patent the genetic code itself , but the net change will be practically nothing .
If they can still patent every single technique and tool involved in examining , testing , or isolating the gene then who gives a crap if they pretend they own the code ?
We 'll still end up reinventing the wheel every time we 'd like to look at any known gene ; either that or we 'll pay thousands of dollars in patent fees per procedure .
I suppose it 's nice that some district court judge finally made the biggest No Flipping Duh ruling of the genetic age , but I think it changes very little in practical terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I suppose it's nice that someone finally ruled you can't patent the genetic code itself, but the net change will be practically nothing.
If they can still patent every single technique and tool involved in examining, testing, or isolating the gene then who gives a crap if they pretend they own the code?
We'll still end up reinventing the wheel every time we'd like to look at any known gene; either that or we'll pay thousands of dollars in patent fees per procedure.
I suppose it's nice that some district court judge finally made the biggest No Flipping Duh ruling of the genetic age, but I think it changes very little in practical terms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31668516</id>
	<title>Re:The US Supreme Court ruling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that would include human genes, wouldn't it? You are aware of how humans are made, aren't you?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that would include human genes , would n't it ?
You are aware of how humans are made , are n't you ?
; D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that would include human genes, wouldn't it?
You are aware of how humans are made, aren't you?
;D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666434</id>
	<title>Let me play Devil's advocate.</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1269883500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents, even of genes, may not be a bad thing. Here's the point of patents: you have to reveal how it works. Why? to advance the state of the science. Not to create a monopoly, but rather to prevent them. I know this is counter intuitive. But it creates a a situation where the next research group can come along, study the patent and then say "Aha! Now we know the next step to take". And as long as they can show a substantial improvement, they can patent their work as well, even *before* the previous patent expires.</p><p>The alternative is to lock information away as a trade secret.</p><p>What many people don't realize is that patents are written directly into the Constitution of the US. See Article I, Section 8. That is how important they were to the drafters of the document.</p><p>My<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.10 USD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents , even of genes , may not be a bad thing .
Here 's the point of patents : you have to reveal how it works .
Why ? to advance the state of the science .
Not to create a monopoly , but rather to prevent them .
I know this is counter intuitive .
But it creates a a situation where the next research group can come along , study the patent and then say " Aha !
Now we know the next step to take " .
And as long as they can show a substantial improvement , they can patent their work as well , even * before * the previous patent expires.The alternative is to lock information away as a trade secret.What many people do n't realize is that patents are written directly into the Constitution of the US .
See Article I , Section 8 .
That is how important they were to the drafters of the document.My .10 USD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents, even of genes, may not be a bad thing.
Here's the point of patents: you have to reveal how it works.
Why? to advance the state of the science.
Not to create a monopoly, but rather to prevent them.
I know this is counter intuitive.
But it creates a a situation where the next research group can come along, study the patent and then say "Aha!
Now we know the next step to take".
And as long as they can show a substantial improvement, they can patent their work as well, even *before* the previous patent expires.The alternative is to lock information away as a trade secret.What many people don't realize is that patents are written directly into the Constitution of the US.
See Article I, Section 8.
That is how important they were to the drafters of the document.My .10 USD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666028</id>
	<title>What's all this bunk about patent genes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269879360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in my day, genes were supposed to help give you the rugged looks of a cowboy or an outdoorsman, not of a greasy 19-year old kid on the make at the disco with his obnoxious friends.  Patent genes!  What will they think of next!!</p><p> <i>(after whispered exchange)</i></p><p>Ohhhhh.  Um.  Never mind!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in my day , genes were supposed to help give you the rugged looks of a cowboy or an outdoorsman , not of a greasy 19-year old kid on the make at the disco with his obnoxious friends .
Patent genes !
What will they think of next ! !
( after whispered exchange ) Ohhhhh .
Um. Never mind !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in my day, genes were supposed to help give you the rugged looks of a cowboy or an outdoorsman, not of a greasy 19-year old kid on the make at the disco with his obnoxious friends.
Patent genes!
What will they think of next!!
(after whispered exchange)Ohhhhh.
Um.  Never mind!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666356</id>
	<title>Henrietta Lacks</title>
	<author>blaster151</author>
	<datestamp>1269882480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was so surreal to see this as the most recent headline on Slashdot - two minutes before, I'd finished listening to the audio version of "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks," which touches on issues surrounding genetic research and the unfortunate incursion of capitalism into tissue storage and research.  The book itself is a fascinating mix of science and history, but the Afterword is all about the commercialism of genetic research and the obstacles it's introducing to scientific progress.  Who owns human tissues and the research advances that come from them: the patients, the researchers, or the scientific community and the world?  More information about the book can be found here: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Immortal-Life-Henrietta-Lacks/dp/1400052173/ref=sr\_1\_2?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1269921885&amp;sr=8-2" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks</a> [amazon.com]
<br> <br>
I was dismayed to learn that it would cost millions to test one individual for all known genetic diseases, not because of inherent costs of the technology but because of all the patents and licensing fees.  I hope that today's positive ruling cascades in positive ways to other realms of gene patenting and unthrottles scientific progress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was so surreal to see this as the most recent headline on Slashdot - two minutes before , I 'd finished listening to the audio version of " The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks , " which touches on issues surrounding genetic research and the unfortunate incursion of capitalism into tissue storage and research .
The book itself is a fascinating mix of science and history , but the Afterword is all about the commercialism of genetic research and the obstacles it 's introducing to scientific progress .
Who owns human tissues and the research advances that come from them : the patients , the researchers , or the scientific community and the world ?
More information about the book can be found here : The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks [ amazon.com ] I was dismayed to learn that it would cost millions to test one individual for all known genetic diseases , not because of inherent costs of the technology but because of all the patents and licensing fees .
I hope that today 's positive ruling cascades in positive ways to other realms of gene patenting and unthrottles scientific progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was so surreal to see this as the most recent headline on Slashdot - two minutes before, I'd finished listening to the audio version of "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks," which touches on issues surrounding genetic research and the unfortunate incursion of capitalism into tissue storage and research.
The book itself is a fascinating mix of science and history, but the Afterword is all about the commercialism of genetic research and the obstacles it's introducing to scientific progress.
Who owns human tissues and the research advances that come from them: the patients, the researchers, or the scientific community and the world?
More information about the book can be found here: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks [amazon.com]
 
I was dismayed to learn that it would cost millions to test one individual for all known genetic diseases, not because of inherent costs of the technology but because of all the patents and licensing fees.
I hope that today's positive ruling cascades in positive ways to other realms of gene patenting and unthrottles scientific progress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666392</id>
	<title>When are patents ever good?</title>
	<author>KarlIsNotMyName</author>
	<datestamp>1269882960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents can take a long walk off a short evolutionary path.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents can take a long walk off a short evolutionary path .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents can take a long walk off a short evolutionary path.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666518</id>
	<title>Re:The US Supreme Court ruling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269884280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The King James of the King James Bible</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The King James of the King James Bible</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The King James of the King James Bible</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669910</id>
	<title>Re:Natural Resource</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269961440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't need to patent coal or wood, if I have a deed to the property it's on that gives me the rights to it, or some other agreement that gives me ownership, then I own it, and if somebody takes it, I can go to the cops and have them arrested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need to patent coal or wood , if I have a deed to the property it 's on that gives me the rights to it , or some other agreement that gives me ownership , then I own it , and if somebody takes it , I can go to the cops and have them arrested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need to patent coal or wood, if I have a deed to the property it's on that gives me the rights to it, or some other agreement that gives me ownership, then I own it, and if somebody takes it, I can go to the cops and have them arrested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31668566</id>
	<title>scientists says</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1269952740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually know a lot about DNA, and I will assert that once you know that a particular piece of DNA needs to be tested for, the way to test is "obvious" and therefore, non patentable.
For instance, lets say a researcher discovers that some new gene - newgeneX - occurs in several different forms (think eye color) among humans, and that one of these forms is associated with a very high risk of heart attack (think apo4e)
once you know this, tests, such as PCR followed by sequencing (454, ion torrent, pacific, SoLid) are "obvious"
so really</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually know a lot about DNA , and I will assert that once you know that a particular piece of DNA needs to be tested for , the way to test is " obvious " and therefore , non patentable .
For instance , lets say a researcher discovers that some new gene - newgeneX - occurs in several different forms ( think eye color ) among humans , and that one of these forms is associated with a very high risk of heart attack ( think apo4e ) once you know this , tests , such as PCR followed by sequencing ( 454 , ion torrent , pacific , SoLid ) are " obvious " so really</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually know a lot about DNA, and I will assert that once you know that a particular piece of DNA needs to be tested for, the way to test is "obvious" and therefore, non patentable.
For instance, lets say a researcher discovers that some new gene - newgeneX - occurs in several different forms (think eye color) among humans, and that one of these forms is associated with a very high risk of heart attack (think apo4e)
once you know this, tests, such as PCR followed by sequencing (454, ion torrent, pacific, SoLid) are "obvious"
so really</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936</id>
	<title>Conversely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269878340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hopefully this will go a long way in ensuring that patents on genes do not stand in the way of research.</p></div><p>And let us also hope that financial backers and investors don't pass on the idea of investing in said research without the potential payout of a full term patent.  <br> <br>

As unpopular as the above statement is on Slashdot and as flawed as the patent system is, it still fulfills purposes making this at least a two sided issue.  Ignoring either side is nothing but folly.<br> <br>

You can revise your statement to read: Hopefully it's a net positive for gene research.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this will go a long way in ensuring that patents on genes do not stand in the way of research.And let us also hope that financial backers and investors do n't pass on the idea of investing in said research without the potential payout of a full term patent .
As unpopular as the above statement is on Slashdot and as flawed as the patent system is , it still fulfills purposes making this at least a two sided issue .
Ignoring either side is nothing but folly .
You can revise your statement to read : Hopefully it 's a net positive for gene research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this will go a long way in ensuring that patents on genes do not stand in the way of research.And let us also hope that financial backers and investors don't pass on the idea of investing in said research without the potential payout of a full term patent.
As unpopular as the above statement is on Slashdot and as flawed as the patent system is, it still fulfills purposes making this at least a two sided issue.
Ignoring either side is nothing but folly.
You can revise your statement to read: Hopefully it's a net positive for gene research.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31671490</id>
	<title>Re:Patents get it RIGHT, folks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269966480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>please note:  drug patents != gene patents.  BIG difference.  This ruling says nothing about patents having to do with drugs and methods for curing disease.  It's simply saying that if some discovers which of your genes causes your high blood pressure, they do not get to patent the gene itself (that DISCOVERY is not intellectual property).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>please note : drug patents ! = gene patents .
BIG difference .
This ruling says nothing about patents having to do with drugs and methods for curing disease .
It 's simply saying that if some discovers which of your genes causes your high blood pressure , they do not get to patent the gene itself ( that DISCOVERY is not intellectual property ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please note:  drug patents != gene patents.
BIG difference.
This ruling says nothing about patents having to do with drugs and methods for curing disease.
It's simply saying that if some discovers which of your genes causes your high blood pressure, they do not get to patent the gene itself (that DISCOVERY is not intellectual property).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666136</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269880200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it doesn't. They can actually make proper inventions. They can invent treatments that target the gene, detection methods to find the gene, methods to remove it, alter it, whatever.</p><p>Just because they found it doesn't mean it's patentable. It's naturally occurring, and they had nothing to do with creating it.</p><p>Imagine if the guys at the LHC discovered another fundamental force. Should they be able to patent it and claim royalties on everyone who "takes advantage" of their discovery of "new gravity"?</p><p>They discovered a gene. They shouldn't have patented it in the first place, they should have invested a tiny bit more to patent a efficient detection method, and still made shitloads of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it does n't .
They can actually make proper inventions .
They can invent treatments that target the gene , detection methods to find the gene , methods to remove it , alter it , whatever.Just because they found it does n't mean it 's patentable .
It 's naturally occurring , and they had nothing to do with creating it.Imagine if the guys at the LHC discovered another fundamental force .
Should they be able to patent it and claim royalties on everyone who " takes advantage " of their discovery of " new gravity " ? They discovered a gene .
They should n't have patented it in the first place , they should have invested a tiny bit more to patent a efficient detection method , and still made shitloads of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it doesn't.
They can actually make proper inventions.
They can invent treatments that target the gene, detection methods to find the gene, methods to remove it, alter it, whatever.Just because they found it doesn't mean it's patentable.
It's naturally occurring, and they had nothing to do with creating it.Imagine if the guys at the LHC discovered another fundamental force.
Should they be able to patent it and claim royalties on everyone who "takes advantage" of their discovery of "new gravity"?They discovered a gene.
They shouldn't have patented it in the first place, they should have invested a tiny bit more to patent a efficient detection method, and still made shitloads of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666144</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>Burdell</author>
	<datestamp>1269880320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think that an astronomer should be able to patent a planet because they saw it first?  How about the particle physicists working on the LHC patenting the Higgs bosun if they find it (sorry, no gravity without a license!)?  Why should someone be able to patent a naturally occurring gene, just because they found it first?  If they find something original, such as an easy way to detect the presence or absence of a gene that can lead to illness, or a way to use that knowledge to treat the condition caused by the gene, patent away, but nobody should be able to patent something that has existed in thousands or millions of people for decades or centuries just because they were the first to track it down.  They didn't invent or create anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think that an astronomer should be able to patent a planet because they saw it first ?
How about the particle physicists working on the LHC patenting the Higgs bosun if they find it ( sorry , no gravity without a license ! ) ?
Why should someone be able to patent a naturally occurring gene , just because they found it first ?
If they find something original , such as an easy way to detect the presence or absence of a gene that can lead to illness , or a way to use that knowledge to treat the condition caused by the gene , patent away , but nobody should be able to patent something that has existed in thousands or millions of people for decades or centuries just because they were the first to track it down .
They did n't invent or create anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think that an astronomer should be able to patent a planet because they saw it first?
How about the particle physicists working on the LHC patenting the Higgs bosun if they find it (sorry, no gravity without a license!)?
Why should someone be able to patent a naturally occurring gene, just because they found it first?
If they find something original, such as an easy way to detect the presence or absence of a gene that can lead to illness, or a way to use that knowledge to treat the condition caused by the gene, patent away, but nobody should be able to patent something that has existed in thousands or millions of people for decades or centuries just because they were the first to track it down.
They didn't invent or create anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666234</id>
	<title>Gene Patents Don't Interfere With Research</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1269881160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Hopefully this will go a long way in ensuring that patents on genes do not stand in the way of research.</em></p><p>If you look at <a href="http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/seminars/pdfs/cohen2.pdf" title="umd.edu">the empirical data</a> [umd.edu], gene patents don't interfere with research.  In a survey of 414 biomedical researchers at universities, government, and nonprofit institutions, none of the 381 respondents reported abandoning a line of research due to patents and only five delayed completion of an experiment for more than one month.  Only one respondent reported paying for access to research materials covered by a patent and the fee was under $100.  The paper concluded that "access to patents on knowledge inputs rarely imposes a significant burden on academic biomedical research."  John P. Walsh, et al, "View from the Bench: Patents and Material Transfers," 309 <em>Science</em> 2002 (September 2005).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this will go a long way in ensuring that patents on genes do not stand in the way of research.If you look at the empirical data [ umd.edu ] , gene patents do n't interfere with research .
In a survey of 414 biomedical researchers at universities , government , and nonprofit institutions , none of the 381 respondents reported abandoning a line of research due to patents and only five delayed completion of an experiment for more than one month .
Only one respondent reported paying for access to research materials covered by a patent and the fee was under $ 100 .
The paper concluded that " access to patents on knowledge inputs rarely imposes a significant burden on academic biomedical research .
" John P. Walsh , et al , " View from the Bench : Patents and Material Transfers , " 309 Science 2002 ( September 2005 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this will go a long way in ensuring that patents on genes do not stand in the way of research.If you look at the empirical data [umd.edu], gene patents don't interfere with research.
In a survey of 414 biomedical researchers at universities, government, and nonprofit institutions, none of the 381 respondents reported abandoning a line of research due to patents and only five delayed completion of an experiment for more than one month.
Only one respondent reported paying for access to research materials covered by a patent and the fee was under $100.
The paper concluded that "access to patents on knowledge inputs rarely imposes a significant burden on academic biomedical research.
"  John P. Walsh, et al, "View from the Bench: Patents and Material Transfers," 309 Science 2002 (September 2005).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666792</id>
	<title>Misread</title>
	<author>dohzer</author>
	<datestamp>1269887280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone else read it as "US District Judge Rules Gene Patients Invalid"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone else read it as " US District Judge Rules Gene Patients Invalid " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone else read it as "US District Judge Rules Gene Patients Invalid"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666210</id>
	<title>Don't forget GMOs</title>
	<author>JumboMessiah</author>
	<datestamp>1269880860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gene patents are also big in the agriculture <a href="http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/service54.htm" title="twnside.org.sg">industry</a> [twnside.org.sg].  And they actively <a href="http://www.calt.iastate.edu/soybean.html" title="iastate.edu">sue</a> [iastate.edu] to keep it that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gene patents are also big in the agriculture industry [ twnside.org.sg ] .
And they actively sue [ iastate.edu ] to keep it that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gene patents are also big in the agriculture industry [twnside.org.sg].
And they actively sue [iastate.edu] to keep it that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1269878820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gene patents were always dubious to me, however patents on gene detection methods and kits should be fully capable of obtaining patent protection. It's like copyrights on facts vs collections.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gene patents were always dubious to me , however patents on gene detection methods and kits should be fully capable of obtaining patent protection .
It 's like copyrights on facts vs collections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gene patents were always dubious to me, however patents on gene detection methods and kits should be fully capable of obtaining patent protection.
It's like copyrights on facts vs collections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666092</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269879840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is absolutely no way we can grant monopolies on certain aspects of life, to anyone. Whether it is a good business proposal to found science or not, it is not correct at all.</p><p>Patents like this come with the power to hold people ransom on existential needs. That cannot, ever, be right.</p><p>Another reason, Gene's are nature's "programming language". Once you can read some of it, reasonable efforts will help you to understand more of it.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; But, there is no point or fairness in granting anyone who finds out "something" first the right to, for many years, control its use. Things will be found out because people NEED to figure them out, even without prospect to get money from patents. This is also why you don't need to patent software - just because someone needed a selectable button and did it first, that does not mean they should be able to patent it and henceforth control all selectable buttons - someone will absolutely, positively need the exact same thing and would have figured it out themselves anyways, with a reasonable degree of certainty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is absolutely no way we can grant monopolies on certain aspects of life , to anyone .
Whether it is a good business proposal to found science or not , it is not correct at all.Patents like this come with the power to hold people ransom on existential needs .
That can not , ever , be right.Another reason , Gene 's are nature 's " programming language " .
Once you can read some of it , reasonable efforts will help you to understand more of it .
    But , there is no point or fairness in granting anyone who finds out " something " first the right to , for many years , control its use .
Things will be found out because people NEED to figure them out , even without prospect to get money from patents .
This is also why you do n't need to patent software - just because someone needed a selectable button and did it first , that does not mean they should be able to patent it and henceforth control all selectable buttons - someone will absolutely , positively need the exact same thing and would have figured it out themselves anyways , with a reasonable degree of certainty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is absolutely no way we can grant monopolies on certain aspects of life, to anyone.
Whether it is a good business proposal to found science or not, it is not correct at all.Patents like this come with the power to hold people ransom on existential needs.
That cannot, ever, be right.Another reason, Gene's are nature's "programming language".
Once you can read some of it, reasonable efforts will help you to understand more of it.
  
  But, there is no point or fairness in granting anyone who finds out "something" first the right to, for many years, control its use.
Things will be found out because people NEED to figure them out, even without prospect to get money from patents.
This is also why you don't need to patent software - just because someone needed a selectable button and did it first, that does not mean they should be able to patent it and henceforth control all selectable buttons - someone will absolutely, positively need the exact same thing and would have figured it out themselves anyways, with a reasonable degree of certainty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666170</id>
	<title>Is this what we want?</title>
	<author>rhadc</author>
	<datestamp>1269880500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This might be a good target for sarcastic comments, but I wonder if there isn't a more worthwhile line of thinking.</p><p>Do we put folks into prison to protect those who are outside, or is it merely punitive?  Knowing that many are going to come out at some point, doesn't it make sense to prepare the convicted for living a normal life?  The story seems to highlight the question for me of whether we would rather "punish" or "correct" those whose trajectories seem to favor harm to society.  What do you say to a person who chooses the side that, despite the hardships that come with it, is the one he understands?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might be a good target for sarcastic comments , but I wonder if there is n't a more worthwhile line of thinking.Do we put folks into prison to protect those who are outside , or is it merely punitive ?
Knowing that many are going to come out at some point , does n't it make sense to prepare the convicted for living a normal life ?
The story seems to highlight the question for me of whether we would rather " punish " or " correct " those whose trajectories seem to favor harm to society .
What do you say to a person who chooses the side that , despite the hardships that come with it , is the one he understands ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might be a good target for sarcastic comments, but I wonder if there isn't a more worthwhile line of thinking.Do we put folks into prison to protect those who are outside, or is it merely punitive?
Knowing that many are going to come out at some point, doesn't it make sense to prepare the convicted for living a normal life?
The story seems to highlight the question for me of whether we would rather "punish" or "correct" those whose trajectories seem to favor harm to society.
What do you say to a person who chooses the side that, despite the hardships that come with it, is the one he understands?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666012</id>
	<title>Allow only 10 patents per year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269879000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The abuse of the patent system is beyond repair.  I say we completely overhaul the entire system and only grant 10 patents per year.  There are not even 10 things that are patent-worthy invented in an average year.  Not anymore.  Combining a cellphone and a pen is not unique and nonobvious and should not be patentable.  Give the 10 best, truly innovative inventions one of ten patents after an exhaustive review at the end of the year.  No genetic patents, no "business method" patents.  Only truly novel inventions should be patentable.  Frankly I can't think of the last invention that I've seen that is worthy of a patent.  10 per year is still allowing at least 5 crap things to get an unfair monopoly that is completely undeserved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The abuse of the patent system is beyond repair .
I say we completely overhaul the entire system and only grant 10 patents per year .
There are not even 10 things that are patent-worthy invented in an average year .
Not anymore .
Combining a cellphone and a pen is not unique and nonobvious and should not be patentable .
Give the 10 best , truly innovative inventions one of ten patents after an exhaustive review at the end of the year .
No genetic patents , no " business method " patents .
Only truly novel inventions should be patentable .
Frankly I ca n't think of the last invention that I 've seen that is worthy of a patent .
10 per year is still allowing at least 5 crap things to get an unfair monopoly that is completely undeserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The abuse of the patent system is beyond repair.
I say we completely overhaul the entire system and only grant 10 patents per year.
There are not even 10 things that are patent-worthy invented in an average year.
Not anymore.
Combining a cellphone and a pen is not unique and nonobvious and should not be patentable.
Give the 10 best, truly innovative inventions one of ten patents after an exhaustive review at the end of the year.
No genetic patents, no "business method" patents.
Only truly novel inventions should be patentable.
Frankly I can't think of the last invention that I've seen that is worthy of a patent.
10 per year is still allowing at least 5 crap things to get an unfair monopoly that is completely undeserved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666086</id>
	<title>Re:Wow....</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1269879780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me too, they had my balls under a restraining order since puberty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me too , they had my balls under a restraining order since puberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me too, they had my balls under a restraining order since puberty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31670664</id>
	<title>Re:Wow....</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1269964020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hate to burst your bubble, but expect this to be reversed on appeal.</p><p>See Dennis Crouch's post here:<br><a href="http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/03/court-essentially-all-gene-patents-are-invalid.html" title="patentlyo.com">http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/03/court-essentially-all-gene-patents-are-invalid.html</a> [patentlyo.com]</p><p>Dennis Crouch is a highly-respected patent law professor whose work is often cited by the Federal Circuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate to burst your bubble , but expect this to be reversed on appeal.See Dennis Crouch 's post here : http : //www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/03/court-essentially-all-gene-patents-are-invalid.html [ patentlyo.com ] Dennis Crouch is a highly-respected patent law professor whose work is often cited by the Federal Circuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate to burst your bubble, but expect this to be reversed on appeal.See Dennis Crouch's post here:http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/03/court-essentially-all-gene-patents-are-invalid.html [patentlyo.com]Dennis Crouch is a highly-respected patent law professor whose work is often cited by the Federal Circuit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666476</id>
	<title>you're using your numbers wrong</title>
	<author>sweatyboatman</author>
	<datestamp>1269883860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Only one respondent reported paying for access to research materials covered by a patent</p></div><p>sounds to me like 1 out of 381 research labs were using patented genes.  either the patented genes aren't all that interesting (possible) or the researchers are actively choosing not to research those genes to avoid the patent issues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only one respondent reported paying for access to research materials covered by a patentsounds to me like 1 out of 381 research labs were using patented genes .
either the patented genes are n't all that interesting ( possible ) or the researchers are actively choosing not to research those genes to avoid the patent issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only one respondent reported paying for access to research materials covered by a patentsounds to me like 1 out of 381 research labs were using patented genes.
either the patented genes aren't all that interesting (possible) or the researchers are actively choosing not to research those genes to avoid the patent issues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666354</id>
	<title>Re:Natural Resource</title>
	<author>robbyjo</author>
	<datestamp>1269882480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even for a new allele, say a SNP, its combination is only A, C, T, or G. Unless they can show that it is highly unlikely that the patented modification would occur naturally, any new alleles should be patent free. And heck, they can't compare the chance with pure random chance since we know that mutations / gene modifications do not occur randomly either. Claiming so would be very hard.</p><p>New treatment may or may not be patentable as well. If the treatment involves a naturally occurring sequence from other people (I'm thinking of siRNA and the likes), they can't patent the sequence either. They can only patent the method to synthesize it. Even then, if the method is in fact a naturally occurring method (i.e., that's how the body of human or other creatures does it), then they can't patent it either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even for a new allele , say a SNP , its combination is only A , C , T , or G. Unless they can show that it is highly unlikely that the patented modification would occur naturally , any new alleles should be patent free .
And heck , they ca n't compare the chance with pure random chance since we know that mutations / gene modifications do not occur randomly either .
Claiming so would be very hard.New treatment may or may not be patentable as well .
If the treatment involves a naturally occurring sequence from other people ( I 'm thinking of siRNA and the likes ) , they ca n't patent the sequence either .
They can only patent the method to synthesize it .
Even then , if the method is in fact a naturally occurring method ( i.e. , that 's how the body of human or other creatures does it ) , then they ca n't patent it either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even for a new allele, say a SNP, its combination is only A, C, T, or G. Unless they can show that it is highly unlikely that the patented modification would occur naturally, any new alleles should be patent free.
And heck, they can't compare the chance with pure random chance since we know that mutations / gene modifications do not occur randomly either.
Claiming so would be very hard.New treatment may or may not be patentable as well.
If the treatment involves a naturally occurring sequence from other people (I'm thinking of siRNA and the likes), they can't patent the sequence either.
They can only patent the method to synthesize it.
Even then, if the method is in fact a naturally occurring method (i.e., that's how the body of human or other creatures does it), then they can't patent it either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666006</id>
	<title>Natural Resource</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269878940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't patent coal, or wood, so why should you be able to patent a natural resource like DNA?  If they create something new from it, like a new allele or treatment, I'd say that's fair game.

In the end, this is an extremely important ruling, but unfortunately it's probably not the end.  It will probably require the Supreme Court to make a ruling.  I don't see anyone involved giving up that easily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't patent coal , or wood , so why should you be able to patent a natural resource like DNA ?
If they create something new from it , like a new allele or treatment , I 'd say that 's fair game .
In the end , this is an extremely important ruling , but unfortunately it 's probably not the end .
It will probably require the Supreme Court to make a ruling .
I do n't see anyone involved giving up that easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't patent coal, or wood, so why should you be able to patent a natural resource like DNA?
If they create something new from it, like a new allele or treatment, I'd say that's fair game.
In the end, this is an extremely important ruling, but unfortunately it's probably not the end.
It will probably require the Supreme Court to make a ruling.
I don't see anyone involved giving up that easily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667324</id>
	<title>Patents in general should not exist</title>
	<author>jprupp</author>
	<datestamp>1269979920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Patents hamper innovation by creating artificial government-issued monopolies on ideas, knowledge and information whose value would be several orders of magnitude higher if allowed to flow freely. It's an aberration of property rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents hamper innovation by creating artificial government-issued monopolies on ideas , knowledge and information whose value would be several orders of magnitude higher if allowed to flow freely .
It 's an aberration of property rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents hamper innovation by creating artificial government-issued monopolies on ideas, knowledge and information whose value would be several orders of magnitude higher if allowed to flow freely.
It's an aberration of property rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666306</id>
	<title>Patent pending</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1269882120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still waiting on my patent on fire to go through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still waiting on my patent on fire to go through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still waiting on my patent on fire to go through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666334</id>
	<title>Re:Allow only 10 patents per year</title>
	<author>robot256</author>
	<datestamp>1269882360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But then all the lawyers would resubmit millions of applications every year.  You also have to limit the number of submissions per inventor or apply a tiered pricing program (first three applications cost $200 each, next 10 cost $10,000 each, after that $30,000 each).  That way small inventors could compete with large corporations without totally swamping the system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But then all the lawyers would resubmit millions of applications every year .
You also have to limit the number of submissions per inventor or apply a tiered pricing program ( first three applications cost $ 200 each , next 10 cost $ 10,000 each , after that $ 30,000 each ) .
That way small inventors could compete with large corporations without totally swamping the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then all the lawyers would resubmit millions of applications every year.
You also have to limit the number of submissions per inventor or apply a tiered pricing program (first three applications cost $200 each, next 10 cost $10,000 each, after that $30,000 each).
That way small inventors could compete with large corporations without totally swamping the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666922</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it !</title>
	<author>Sparx139</author>
	<datestamp>1269888360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Short answer? <br> <br>

The patent system is fucked up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Short answer ?
The patent system is fucked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short answer?
The patent system is fucked up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666156</id>
	<title>Oh, Thank Gawd....</title>
	<author>undecim</author>
	<datestamp>1269880380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was worried about getting sued by one of those patent holders. As much as I copy these genes, they could have sued me for all the money in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was worried about getting sued by one of those patent holders .
As much as I copy these genes , they could have sued me for all the money in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was worried about getting sued by one of those patent holders.
As much as I copy these genes, they could have sued me for all the money in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666192</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1269880740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>  Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call that win/win.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Then you need to learn some math. Lower drug prices is a WIN for customers. No patents
to prevent public research breakthroughs is a WIN for science. That's two WINs, count'em.
</p><blockquote><div><p>  If companies can't get a patent, why would they
  invest millions, even billions, into the research, if the moment they make a
  discovery, the company next door gets to profit from their research for free
  with ZERO seed investment.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
For the same reason companies today invest millions, even billions into contributing
to open source, like the Linux kernel, even though their competitors get to
profit from those contributions for free with ZERO seed investment.
</p><blockquote><div><p>  What this DOES do is essentially put all genetics research companies out of
  business,</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Good riddance to bad rubbish. If the only way they can contribute research is
by blocking others with patents, then we don't need their "research".</p><blockquote><div><p>and leaves it to government organizations and government funded
  educational institutions to do the research.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
That's a good idea. Medical breakthroughs should be available to all citizens
unencumbered by patents, and at affordable prices, and that's the  best way
to ensure this in the long term. Some industries, like health care, are strategically
important. Moreover, with fewer private companies to drain the smart people from
universities, the next generation of students would have a higher quality education.
Yet another WIN.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I would n't exactly call that win/win .
Then you need to learn some math .
Lower drug prices is a WIN for customers .
No patents to prevent public research breakthroughs is a WIN for science .
That 's two WINs , count'em .
If companies ca n't get a patent , why would they invest millions , even billions , into the research , if the moment they make a discovery , the company next door gets to profit from their research for free with ZERO seed investment .
For the same reason companies today invest millions , even billions into contributing to open source , like the Linux kernel , even though their competitors get to profit from those contributions for free with ZERO seed investment .
What this DOES do is essentially put all genetics research companies out of business , Good riddance to bad rubbish .
If the only way they can contribute research is by blocking others with patents , then we do n't need their " research " .and leaves it to government organizations and government funded educational institutions to do the research .
That 's a good idea .
Medical breakthroughs should be available to all citizens unencumbered by patents , and at affordable prices , and that 's the best way to ensure this in the long term .
Some industries , like health care , are strategically important .
Moreover , with fewer private companies to drain the smart people from universities , the next generation of students would have a higher quality education .
Yet another WIN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call that win/win.
Then you need to learn some math.
Lower drug prices is a WIN for customers.
No patents
to prevent public research breakthroughs is a WIN for science.
That's two WINs, count'em.
If companies can't get a patent, why would they
  invest millions, even billions, into the research, if the moment they make a
  discovery, the company next door gets to profit from their research for free
  with ZERO seed investment.
For the same reason companies today invest millions, even billions into contributing
to open source, like the Linux kernel, even though their competitors get to
profit from those contributions for free with ZERO seed investment.
What this DOES do is essentially put all genetics research companies out of
  business,

Good riddance to bad rubbish.
If the only way they can contribute research is
by blocking others with patents, then we don't need their "research".and leaves it to government organizations and government funded
  educational institutions to do the research.
That's a good idea.
Medical breakthroughs should be available to all citizens
unencumbered by patents, and at affordable prices, and that's the  best way
to ensure this in the long term.
Some industries, like health care, are strategically
important.
Moreover, with fewer private companies to drain the smart people from
universities, the next generation of students would have a higher quality education.
Yet another WIN.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31668634</id>
	<title>nice approach!</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1269953640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I kinda like the approach, instead of fighting cancer directly, just...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1.) patent cancer codes<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2.) make cancer pay unreasonable licence fees for use in humans<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3.) watch cancer vanish</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I kinda like the approach , instead of fighting cancer directly , just.. .     1 .
) patent cancer codes     2 .
) make cancer pay unreasonable licence fees for use in humans     3 .
) watch cancer vanish</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kinda like the approach, instead of fighting cancer directly, just...
    1.
) patent cancer codes
    2.
) make cancer pay unreasonable licence fees for use in humans
    3.
) watch cancer vanish</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667248</id>
	<title>Patents Vs Incentives for Research</title>
	<author>v1x</author>
	<datestamp>1269892500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question of what might happen to research in the absence of patents or without the prospect of commercialization is an interesting one by itself, and many slashdot readers have noted the pros and cons of patents in the posts above. As is evident from the <a href="http://www.myriadtests.com/index.php?page\_id=206" title="myriadtests.com">publications</a> [myriadtests.com] describing the evidence for these genes--and arguably also the publications that preceded these specific discoveries--a large body of this research was supported by pubic funding.
<br>
Therefore <i>if</i> there were any serious argument in favor of the patentability of genes, then I would argue that the taxpayers that bore the burden of supporting such research are also entitled to a stake in the returns from the patents. In the very least, they could start by paying the NIH and other sponsors of their research in the same way that they pay the Universities where the research is typically conducted, so that these funding agencies may then <i>invest</i> in other researchers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question of what might happen to research in the absence of patents or without the prospect of commercialization is an interesting one by itself , and many slashdot readers have noted the pros and cons of patents in the posts above .
As is evident from the publications [ myriadtests.com ] describing the evidence for these genes--and arguably also the publications that preceded these specific discoveries--a large body of this research was supported by pubic funding .
Therefore if there were any serious argument in favor of the patentability of genes , then I would argue that the taxpayers that bore the burden of supporting such research are also entitled to a stake in the returns from the patents .
In the very least , they could start by paying the NIH and other sponsors of their research in the same way that they pay the Universities where the research is typically conducted , so that these funding agencies may then invest in other researchers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question of what might happen to research in the absence of patents or without the prospect of commercialization is an interesting one by itself, and many slashdot readers have noted the pros and cons of patents in the posts above.
As is evident from the publications [myriadtests.com] describing the evidence for these genes--and arguably also the publications that preceded these specific discoveries--a large body of this research was supported by pubic funding.
Therefore if there were any serious argument in favor of the patentability of genes, then I would argue that the taxpayers that bore the burden of supporting such research are also entitled to a stake in the returns from the patents.
In the very least, they could start by paying the NIH and other sponsors of their research in the same way that they pay the Universities where the research is typically conducted, so that these funding agencies may then invest in other researchers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666010</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269879000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up.</p><p>This is a double edged sword.  If companies can't get a patent, why would they invest millions, even billions, into the research, if the moment they make a discovery, the company next door gets to profit from their research for free with ZERO seed investment.<br>Suddenly their competitors are all charging less because they have no costs to recoup, and the companies that are good enough at research to have made the breakthroughs go bankrupt and disappear.</p><p>Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call that win/win.</p><p>What this DOES do is essentially put all genetics research companies out of business, and leaves it to government organizations and government funded educational institutions to do the research.<br>Educational institutions, while they have been successful in many areas of research, are diversified in their funding, and can't even begin to touch the levels of specialized funding that the biotech corporations have for doing this kind of research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up.This is a double edged sword .
If companies ca n't get a patent , why would they invest millions , even billions , into the research , if the moment they make a discovery , the company next door gets to profit from their research for free with ZERO seed investment.Suddenly their competitors are all charging less because they have no costs to recoup , and the companies that are good enough at research to have made the breakthroughs go bankrupt and disappear.Yeah , I would n't exactly call that win/win.What this DOES do is essentially put all genetics research companies out of business , and leaves it to government organizations and government funded educational institutions to do the research.Educational institutions , while they have been successful in many areas of research , are diversified in their funding , and ca n't even begin to touch the levels of specialized funding that the biotech corporations have for doing this kind of research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.This is a double edged sword.
If companies can't get a patent, why would they invest millions, even billions, into the research, if the moment they make a discovery, the company next door gets to profit from their research for free with ZERO seed investment.Suddenly their competitors are all charging less because they have no costs to recoup, and the companies that are good enough at research to have made the breakthroughs go bankrupt and disappear.Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call that win/win.What this DOES do is essentially put all genetics research companies out of business, and leaves it to government organizations and government funded educational institutions to do the research.Educational institutions, while they have been successful in many areas of research, are diversified in their funding, and can't even begin to touch the levels of specialized funding that the biotech corporations have for doing this kind of research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31670570</id>
	<title>Re:Patents get it RIGHT, folks!</title>
	<author>Squiggle</author>
	<datestamp>1269963780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because the original drug was patented, the method of producing it was well documented and in the public domain.</p></div><p>This assumes that reverse engineering the drug is of sufficient complexity that it would lock out most/all competitors. I know nothing of the pharmaceutical industry so I can't comment.

Your worse assumption is that without patents the industry would somehow still (badly) function the way it does today. Rather, without patents things would be very different. One possible future might be more like script writers and the movie industry. Researchers would be sending how to make particular drugs to the manufacturers of them, trying to convince the manufacturers that retooling for their particular drug is a good investment. Perhaps drugs become highly personalized such that many researchers spend most of their time personalizing drugs for particular individuals who then contract out to a local drug manufacturer for the prescription. In any case, the industry certainly won't look like a non-functional version of the patent-system based one we have today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the original drug was patented , the method of producing it was well documented and in the public domain.This assumes that reverse engineering the drug is of sufficient complexity that it would lock out most/all competitors .
I know nothing of the pharmaceutical industry so I ca n't comment .
Your worse assumption is that without patents the industry would somehow still ( badly ) function the way it does today .
Rather , without patents things would be very different .
One possible future might be more like script writers and the movie industry .
Researchers would be sending how to make particular drugs to the manufacturers of them , trying to convince the manufacturers that retooling for their particular drug is a good investment .
Perhaps drugs become highly personalized such that many researchers spend most of their time personalizing drugs for particular individuals who then contract out to a local drug manufacturer for the prescription .
In any case , the industry certainly wo n't look like a non-functional version of the patent-system based one we have today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the original drug was patented, the method of producing it was well documented and in the public domain.This assumes that reverse engineering the drug is of sufficient complexity that it would lock out most/all competitors.
I know nothing of the pharmaceutical industry so I can't comment.
Your worse assumption is that without patents the industry would somehow still (badly) function the way it does today.
Rather, without patents things would be very different.
One possible future might be more like script writers and the movie industry.
Researchers would be sending how to make particular drugs to the manufacturers of them, trying to convince the manufacturers that retooling for their particular drug is a good investment.
Perhaps drugs become highly personalized such that many researchers spend most of their time personalizing drugs for particular individuals who then contract out to a local drug manufacturer for the prescription.
In any case, the industry certainly won't look like a non-functional version of the patent-system based one we have today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666060</id>
	<title>I don't get it !</title>
	<author>Taco Cowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269879540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it !</p><p>If they can patent the way I work (while listening to music), why can't I patent my own genes?</p><p>Double standards??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it ! If they can patent the way I work ( while listening to music ) , why ca n't I patent my own genes ? Double standards ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it !If they can patent the way I work (while listening to music), why can't I patent my own genes?Double standards?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666538</id>
	<title>Re:The US Supreme Court ruling</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1269884460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, so if I'm a Platonist, then...<em>everything</em> already exists in Forms, thus everything is discovered, never invented, thus...no patents?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , so if I 'm a Platonist , then...everything already exists in Forms , thus everything is discovered , never invented , thus...no patents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, so if I'm a Platonist, then...everything already exists in Forms, thus everything is discovered, never invented, thus...no patents?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667566</id>
	<title>just a guess...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269982740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i wonder if they tried demanding women pay them royalties to have kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i wonder if they tried demanding women pay them royalties to have kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wonder if they tried demanding women pay them royalties to have kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666450</id>
	<title>Photographs</title>
	<author>zlel</author>
	<datestamp>1269883620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It occurred to me that capturing genetic code as a database is somewhat (albeit remotely) like taking a photograph of something that already exists in nature.

If patents are there to protect invention (ie, to encourage invention by making it profitable), why is literary work not patentable? If a sci-fi writer invents a new scientific concept and builds a story around it, he may be able to patent that scientific concept, but there's nothing to stop other writers from stealing his invention in writing, is there?

At the end of the day, I still don't see why software isn't "literary work".</htmltext>
<tokenext>It occurred to me that capturing genetic code as a database is somewhat ( albeit remotely ) like taking a photograph of something that already exists in nature .
If patents are there to protect invention ( ie , to encourage invention by making it profitable ) , why is literary work not patentable ?
If a sci-fi writer invents a new scientific concept and builds a story around it , he may be able to patent that scientific concept , but there 's nothing to stop other writers from stealing his invention in writing , is there ?
At the end of the day , I still do n't see why software is n't " literary work " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It occurred to me that capturing genetic code as a database is somewhat (albeit remotely) like taking a photograph of something that already exists in nature.
If patents are there to protect invention (ie, to encourage invention by making it profitable), why is literary work not patentable?
If a sci-fi writer invents a new scientific concept and builds a story around it, he may be able to patent that scientific concept, but there's nothing to stop other writers from stealing his invention in writing, is there?
At the end of the day, I still don't see why software isn't "literary work".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666818</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>reverseengineer</author>
	<datestamp>1269887700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real issue, in my opinion, with these patents is that Myriad tries to make the information of the gene sequence essential to any detection method for that gene.  Take a look at Myriad's <a href="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5837492.html" title="freepatentsonline.com">patent</a> [freepatentsonline.com] for the breast cancer-related gene BRCA2.  Right at the beginning, "Specifically, the present invention relates to methods and materials used to isolate and detect a human breast cancer predisposing gene (BRCA2), some mutant alleles of which cause susceptibility to cancer, in particular breast cancer. More specifically, the invention relates to germline mutations in the BRCA2 gene and their use in the diagnosis of predisposition to breast cancer."  So at first glance, you might think that this patent refers to a diagnostic test for BRCA2, which seems to be an acceptable place for a patent for many people.  After all, DNA sequences are just molecules, and there are any number of non-contentious patented tests for biological molecules already- think of glucose test strips, for instance.  Manufacturers have found ways to patent various advances in testing for blood glucose without actually asserting a patent on glucose itself.
<br> <br>
However, when you test for something like glucose, the test result is going to be a concentration.  When you talk about performing a test for BRCA2-based cancer susceptibility, you don't just need to "detect" BRCA2, but be able to isolate it and determine whether it differs from the wild-type BRCA2.  So Myriad had the idea that in their patent claims they could define their "methods and materials" to be both the likely molecular bio technique intermediates, and also <i>the molecules that are the theoretical outcomes of any BRCA2 test</i>.  <br> <br>Paraphrasing some of their claims:
-We claim the isolated normal BRCA2 sequence, and any isolated subset of that sequence comprised of at least 15 contiguous nucleotides.<br>
-We claim the isolated major mutant sequence of BRCA2 known to be involved in susceptibility to cancer, and any isolated subset of that sequence comprised of at least 15 contiguous nucleotides.<br>
-We claim nearly 40 different variants of the major mutant sequence.<br>
-We claim any sort of cloning vector, expression vector, recombinant cell line, or PCR primer involving an at least 15 contiguous nucleotide stretch of any of the above sequences.
<br> <br>
So Myriad was trying to claim that the invention was a diagnostic method, just that any molecule corresponding to the nucleotide sequences they claimed were an intrinsic part of the "method."  What's interesting about the "15 contiguous nucleotides" mention that keeps cropping up is that BRCA2 is over 11000 nucleotides long, producing a protein 3400 amino acids long, such that Myriad laid claim to tiny fragments of the gene which would have had no BRCA2 function on their own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real issue , in my opinion , with these patents is that Myriad tries to make the information of the gene sequence essential to any detection method for that gene .
Take a look at Myriad 's patent [ freepatentsonline.com ] for the breast cancer-related gene BRCA2 .
Right at the beginning , " Specifically , the present invention relates to methods and materials used to isolate and detect a human breast cancer predisposing gene ( BRCA2 ) , some mutant alleles of which cause susceptibility to cancer , in particular breast cancer .
More specifically , the invention relates to germline mutations in the BRCA2 gene and their use in the diagnosis of predisposition to breast cancer .
" So at first glance , you might think that this patent refers to a diagnostic test for BRCA2 , which seems to be an acceptable place for a patent for many people .
After all , DNA sequences are just molecules , and there are any number of non-contentious patented tests for biological molecules already- think of glucose test strips , for instance .
Manufacturers have found ways to patent various advances in testing for blood glucose without actually asserting a patent on glucose itself .
However , when you test for something like glucose , the test result is going to be a concentration .
When you talk about performing a test for BRCA2-based cancer susceptibility , you do n't just need to " detect " BRCA2 , but be able to isolate it and determine whether it differs from the wild-type BRCA2 .
So Myriad had the idea that in their patent claims they could define their " methods and materials " to be both the likely molecular bio technique intermediates , and also the molecules that are the theoretical outcomes of any BRCA2 test .
Paraphrasing some of their claims : -We claim the isolated normal BRCA2 sequence , and any isolated subset of that sequence comprised of at least 15 contiguous nucleotides .
-We claim the isolated major mutant sequence of BRCA2 known to be involved in susceptibility to cancer , and any isolated subset of that sequence comprised of at least 15 contiguous nucleotides .
-We claim nearly 40 different variants of the major mutant sequence .
-We claim any sort of cloning vector , expression vector , recombinant cell line , or PCR primer involving an at least 15 contiguous nucleotide stretch of any of the above sequences .
So Myriad was trying to claim that the invention was a diagnostic method , just that any molecule corresponding to the nucleotide sequences they claimed were an intrinsic part of the " method .
" What 's interesting about the " 15 contiguous nucleotides " mention that keeps cropping up is that BRCA2 is over 11000 nucleotides long , producing a protein 3400 amino acids long , such that Myriad laid claim to tiny fragments of the gene which would have had no BRCA2 function on their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real issue, in my opinion, with these patents is that Myriad tries to make the information of the gene sequence essential to any detection method for that gene.
Take a look at Myriad's patent [freepatentsonline.com] for the breast cancer-related gene BRCA2.
Right at the beginning, "Specifically, the present invention relates to methods and materials used to isolate and detect a human breast cancer predisposing gene (BRCA2), some mutant alleles of which cause susceptibility to cancer, in particular breast cancer.
More specifically, the invention relates to germline mutations in the BRCA2 gene and their use in the diagnosis of predisposition to breast cancer.
"  So at first glance, you might think that this patent refers to a diagnostic test for BRCA2, which seems to be an acceptable place for a patent for many people.
After all, DNA sequences are just molecules, and there are any number of non-contentious patented tests for biological molecules already- think of glucose test strips, for instance.
Manufacturers have found ways to patent various advances in testing for blood glucose without actually asserting a patent on glucose itself.
However, when you test for something like glucose, the test result is going to be a concentration.
When you talk about performing a test for BRCA2-based cancer susceptibility, you don't just need to "detect" BRCA2, but be able to isolate it and determine whether it differs from the wild-type BRCA2.
So Myriad had the idea that in their patent claims they could define their "methods and materials" to be both the likely molecular bio technique intermediates, and also the molecules that are the theoretical outcomes of any BRCA2 test.
Paraphrasing some of their claims:
-We claim the isolated normal BRCA2 sequence, and any isolated subset of that sequence comprised of at least 15 contiguous nucleotides.
-We claim the isolated major mutant sequence of BRCA2 known to be involved in susceptibility to cancer, and any isolated subset of that sequence comprised of at least 15 contiguous nucleotides.
-We claim nearly 40 different variants of the major mutant sequence.
-We claim any sort of cloning vector, expression vector, recombinant cell line, or PCR primer involving an at least 15 contiguous nucleotide stretch of any of the above sequences.
So Myriad was trying to claim that the invention was a diagnostic method, just that any molecule corresponding to the nucleotide sequences they claimed were an intrinsic part of the "method.
"  What's interesting about the "15 contiguous nucleotides" mention that keeps cropping up is that BRCA2 is over 11000 nucleotides long, producing a protein 3400 amino acids long, such that Myriad laid claim to tiny fragments of the gene which would have had no BRCA2 function on their own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669890</id>
	<title>Trade secret</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1269961440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why can't I patent my own genes?</p></div><p>No need.  For most of us it's a trade secret!  Probably protected under copyright too.  Only you have the right to distribut... hmm, this took a bad turn somewhere...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why ca n't I patent my own genes ? No need .
For most of us it 's a trade secret !
Probably protected under copyright too .
Only you have the right to distribut... hmm , this took a bad turn somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why can't I patent my own genes?No need.
For most of us it's a trade secret!
Probably protected under copyright too.
Only you have the right to distribut... hmm, this took a bad turn somewhere...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666514</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1269884220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree the patent system needs work, being so one-sided may be a bit too far. I support the use of government money to fund medical research (the saving lives kind, not the blue pill kind), but there is only so much money out there. Unlike copyrights, medical patents do expire, so these corporate-funded breakthroughs benefit everyone in the end (of course, Big Pharma wants to change this).<br> <br>

The government only has so much money to put into research, so it should be focused on things that take longest to become profitable (mostly basic research). If a corporation thinks it can turn a profit on a drug before the patent expires, that's a privately funded project the government doesn't have to pay for. By the time the government could afford to do the research, the patent may be reaching expiration anyways.<br> <br>

The lack of patents may allow for more branch-off research, but I wouldn't be confident that could make up for what patented research can do. Given we are talking about breakthroughs that could save lives, I think we have to choose the more reliable route, even if some aspects are disagreeable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree the patent system needs work , being so one-sided may be a bit too far .
I support the use of government money to fund medical research ( the saving lives kind , not the blue pill kind ) , but there is only so much money out there .
Unlike copyrights , medical patents do expire , so these corporate-funded breakthroughs benefit everyone in the end ( of course , Big Pharma wants to change this ) .
The government only has so much money to put into research , so it should be focused on things that take longest to become profitable ( mostly basic research ) .
If a corporation thinks it can turn a profit on a drug before the patent expires , that 's a privately funded project the government does n't have to pay for .
By the time the government could afford to do the research , the patent may be reaching expiration anyways .
The lack of patents may allow for more branch-off research , but I would n't be confident that could make up for what patented research can do .
Given we are talking about breakthroughs that could save lives , I think we have to choose the more reliable route , even if some aspects are disagreeable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree the patent system needs work, being so one-sided may be a bit too far.
I support the use of government money to fund medical research (the saving lives kind, not the blue pill kind), but there is only so much money out there.
Unlike copyrights, medical patents do expire, so these corporate-funded breakthroughs benefit everyone in the end (of course, Big Pharma wants to change this).
The government only has so much money to put into research, so it should be focused on things that take longest to become profitable (mostly basic research).
If a corporation thinks it can turn a profit on a drug before the patent expires, that's a privately funded project the government doesn't have to pay for.
By the time the government could afford to do the research, the patent may be reaching expiration anyways.
The lack of patents may allow for more branch-off research, but I wouldn't be confident that could make up for what patented research can do.
Given we are talking about breakthroughs that could save lives, I think we have to choose the more reliable route, even if some aspects are disagreeable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665932</id>
	<title>Wow....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269878280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad this is happening. It's a huge weight off my chest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad this is happening .
It 's a huge weight off my chest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad this is happening.
It's a huge weight off my chest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667322</id>
	<title>Patents don't prevent research</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269979920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents actually make the research a little easier, part of it has to be published.  No one is going to sue anyone for doing pure research.</p><p>Patents take away the financial incentive for someone else to expand on it.  No one does research on the patented object because theres no return on the investment in resources other than pure intellectualism.</p><p>Contrary to what you might think the entire world does not live on random 'feel good' vibes from committing patches to GPL software and during research just to share with everyone else.</p><p>If you think patents prevent research you don't have a very good connection to reality.  Greed and motivation control what gets researched.</p><p>The argument that patents prevent research is just as valid as the argument that patents promote research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents actually make the research a little easier , part of it has to be published .
No one is going to sue anyone for doing pure research.Patents take away the financial incentive for someone else to expand on it .
No one does research on the patented object because theres no return on the investment in resources other than pure intellectualism.Contrary to what you might think the entire world does not live on random 'feel good ' vibes from committing patches to GPL software and during research just to share with everyone else.If you think patents prevent research you do n't have a very good connection to reality .
Greed and motivation control what gets researched.The argument that patents prevent research is just as valid as the argument that patents promote research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents actually make the research a little easier, part of it has to be published.
No one is going to sue anyone for doing pure research.Patents take away the financial incentive for someone else to expand on it.
No one does research on the patented object because theres no return on the investment in resources other than pure intellectualism.Contrary to what you might think the entire world does not live on random 'feel good' vibes from committing patches to GPL software and during research just to share with everyone else.If you think patents prevent research you don't have a very good connection to reality.
Greed and motivation control what gets researched.The argument that patents prevent research is just as valid as the argument that patents promote research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666254</id>
	<title>The US Supreme Court ruling</title>
	<author>pearl298</author>
	<datestamp>1269881280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US Supreme Court ruling used the term "anything under the sun that is made by man". <br> <br>

The essence of this lawsuit is that the natural genes were "discovered" not "made by man". <br> <br>

In other words these patents were invalid under existing law. Nothing new here, bad patents have been around since King James (the gay King of England and Scotland).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Supreme Court ruling used the term " anything under the sun that is made by man " .
The essence of this lawsuit is that the natural genes were " discovered " not " made by man " .
In other words these patents were invalid under existing law .
Nothing new here , bad patents have been around since King James ( the gay King of England and Scotland ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Supreme Court ruling used the term "anything under the sun that is made by man".
The essence of this lawsuit is that the natural genes were "discovered" not "made by man".
In other words these patents were invalid under existing law.
Nothing new here, bad patents have been around since King James (the gay King of England and Scotland).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666178</id>
	<title>prior art:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269880560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mother fucking nature</p><p>greedy douchebags</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mother fucking naturegreedy douchebags</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mother fucking naturegreedy douchebags</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666468</id>
	<title>Re:Allow only 10 patents per year</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1269883800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes!  And there should be several rounds of competition and public voting!  The competitors must complete several challenges during each round, such as digging for prior art to disqualify their rivals and giving speeches to defend their claim to the Top 10. The whole thing should be shown on C-SPAN and hosted by a three-judge panel: a patent lawyer, an inventor, and Paula Abdul.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes !
And there should be several rounds of competition and public voting !
The competitors must complete several challenges during each round , such as digging for prior art to disqualify their rivals and giving speeches to defend their claim to the Top 10 .
The whole thing should be shown on C-SPAN and hosted by a three-judge panel : a patent lawyer , an inventor , and Paula Abdul .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes!
And there should be several rounds of competition and public voting!
The competitors must complete several challenges during each round, such as digging for prior art to disqualify their rivals and giving speeches to defend their claim to the Top 10.
The whole thing should be shown on C-SPAN and hosted by a three-judge panel: a patent lawyer, an inventor, and Paula Abdul.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666154</id>
	<title>Discovery, not Invention</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1269880380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See the difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See the difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669840</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269961260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another reason, Gene's are nature's "programming language". Once you can read some of it, reasonable efforts will help you to understand more of it.</p></div><p>So reverse engineering them should be adjudicated under the DMCA?</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) for the humor impaired.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another reason , Gene 's are nature 's " programming language " .
Once you can read some of it , reasonable efforts will help you to understand more of it.So reverse engineering them should be adjudicated under the DMCA ?
: ) for the humor impaired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another reason, Gene's are nature's "programming language".
Once you can read some of it, reasonable efforts will help you to understand more of it.So reverse engineering them should be adjudicated under the DMCA?
:) for the humor impaired.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666220</id>
	<title>Re:Allow only 10 patents per year</title>
	<author>techno-vampire</author>
	<datestamp>1269880980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>No genetic patents, no "business method" patents.</i> <p>
I think your basic idea goes too far, but in this, at least, I agree.  All business patents should be thrown out on the grounds that patents were never intended to protect ideas, just concrete applications of them.  And, on the grounds that patent law originally specified that methods in and of themselves were not patentable, out go the software patents along with the rest.  Do that, and most of the mess clears itself up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No genetic patents , no " business method " patents .
I think your basic idea goes too far , but in this , at least , I agree .
All business patents should be thrown out on the grounds that patents were never intended to protect ideas , just concrete applications of them .
And , on the grounds that patent law originally specified that methods in and of themselves were not patentable , out go the software patents along with the rest .
Do that , and most of the mess clears itself up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No genetic patents, no "business method" patents.
I think your basic idea goes too far, but in this, at least, I agree.
All business patents should be thrown out on the grounds that patents were never intended to protect ideas, just concrete applications of them.
And, on the grounds that patent law originally specified that methods in and of themselves were not patentable, out go the software patents along with the rest.
Do that, and most of the mess clears itself up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667598</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1269939960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The flip side to this is that patents have always covered inventions, not discoveries.  One couldn't, for example, patent Quantum Physics.  Or Florida.  They could patent ways of using quantum physics for computing or other applications, but not the basic discovery itself.  Patents by law cover inventions and nothing else.  Discovering genes that do something is not a form of invention, but pure research.  Whether or not you think there should be protection for pure research in the US (besides trade secrets, of course), there currently isn't.</p><p>Gene companies will have to get their patents the old fashioned way: by actually inventing a cure for something.  Simply saying "anyone who wants to cure or treat Lou Gherig's disease needs to pay us a royalty for discovering it first" is simply no longer viable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The flip side to this is that patents have always covered inventions , not discoveries .
One could n't , for example , patent Quantum Physics .
Or Florida .
They could patent ways of using quantum physics for computing or other applications , but not the basic discovery itself .
Patents by law cover inventions and nothing else .
Discovering genes that do something is not a form of invention , but pure research .
Whether or not you think there should be protection for pure research in the US ( besides trade secrets , of course ) , there currently is n't.Gene companies will have to get their patents the old fashioned way : by actually inventing a cure for something .
Simply saying " anyone who wants to cure or treat Lou Gherig 's disease needs to pay us a royalty for discovering it first " is simply no longer viable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flip side to this is that patents have always covered inventions, not discoveries.
One couldn't, for example, patent Quantum Physics.
Or Florida.
They could patent ways of using quantum physics for computing or other applications, but not the basic discovery itself.
Patents by law cover inventions and nothing else.
Discovering genes that do something is not a form of invention, but pure research.
Whether or not you think there should be protection for pure research in the US (besides trade secrets, of course), there currently isn't.Gene companies will have to get their patents the old fashioned way: by actually inventing a cure for something.
Simply saying "anyone who wants to cure or treat Lou Gherig's disease needs to pay us a royalty for discovering it first" is simply no longer viable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31675240</id>
	<title>Re:Patents get it RIGHT, folks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269979080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>obviously you dont know what the judges ruling was. RTFA.  Only the gene patent is invalid not their discovery process or whatever the hell they did with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>obviously you dont know what the judges ruling was .
RTFA. Only the gene patent is invalid not their discovery process or whatever the hell they did with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obviously you dont know what the judges ruling was.
RTFA.  Only the gene patent is invalid not their discovery process or whatever the hell they did with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666398</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1269883020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Making a test that can cheaply identify a specific gene sequence is still a major goal of biotech firms. Today to get a screening for a handful of known cancer and heart disease risks cost over $1,200, much too expensive to be a routine test for the majority of health insurance customers. Drop that cost by 10x and suddenly you have a much larger market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Making a test that can cheaply identify a specific gene sequence is still a major goal of biotech firms .
Today to get a screening for a handful of known cancer and heart disease risks cost over $ 1,200 , much too expensive to be a routine test for the majority of health insurance customers .
Drop that cost by 10x and suddenly you have a much larger market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making a test that can cheaply identify a specific gene sequence is still a major goal of biotech firms.
Today to get a screening for a handful of known cancer and heart disease risks cost over $1,200, much too expensive to be a routine test for the majority of health insurance customers.
Drop that cost by 10x and suddenly you have a much larger market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666690</id>
	<title>Ahhhhh.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269886200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will be overturned in 3, 2, 1...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be overturned in 3 , 2 , 1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be overturned in 3, 2, 1...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666328</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1269882360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The device or a novel process? Yes. But you should not be able to patent the gene which effectively makes your device the only way to detect the disease. That is not what the patent system is for. It is for protecting novel inventions, not for locking up essential, basic knowledge with a toll booth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The device or a novel process ?
Yes. But you should not be able to patent the gene which effectively makes your device the only way to detect the disease .
That is not what the patent system is for .
It is for protecting novel inventions , not for locking up essential , basic knowledge with a toll booth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The device or a novel process?
Yes. But you should not be able to patent the gene which effectively makes your device the only way to detect the disease.
That is not what the patent system is for.
It is for protecting novel inventions, not for locking up essential, basic knowledge with a toll booth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669666</id>
	<title>Re:Allow only 10 patents per year</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1269960300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And, on the grounds that patent law originally specified that methods in and of themselves were not patentable</p></div><p>35 U.S.C. 101: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful <b>process</b>, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."</p><p>
Methods are totally patentable, provided they do something useful. You're thinking "abstract algorithms."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , on the grounds that patent law originally specified that methods in and of themselves were not patentable35 U.S.C .
101 : " Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process , machine , manufacture , or composition of matter , or any new and useful improvement thereof , may obtain a patent therefor , subject to the conditions and requirements of this title .
" Methods are totally patentable , provided they do something useful .
You 're thinking " abstract algorithms .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, on the grounds that patent law originally specified that methods in and of themselves were not patentable35 U.S.C.
101: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
"
Methods are totally patentable, provided they do something useful.
You're thinking "abstract algorithms.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666350</id>
	<title>thank God</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1269882420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>finally someone gets it right. There is no part of the patent system for offensive than gene patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>finally someone gets it right .
There is no part of the patent system for offensive than gene patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>finally someone gets it right.
There is no part of the patent system for offensive than gene patents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666162</id>
	<title>Re:Conversely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269880440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem is that the hard part is finding the sequence.  Once you know the sequence, there's tons of systems in place that can detect it.  It's like spending a million dollars to find a number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is that the hard part is finding the sequence .
Once you know the sequence , there 's tons of systems in place that can detect it .
It 's like spending a million dollars to find a number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is that the hard part is finding the sequence.
Once you know the sequence, there's tons of systems in place that can detect it.
It's like spending a million dollars to find a number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667320</id>
	<title>Patents get it RIGHT, folks!</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1269979920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents aren't perfect. No form of IP is - all forms of IP are a compromise.</p><p>But in large part, (perhaps excepting software patents and MAYBE gene patents) the concept of a "patent" gets it RIGHT!!!</p><p><b>In the area of pharmaceuticals, If you do away with patents, then you lose the endless supply of 20-year-old innovation you now know as "generic drugs"</b> because the deal with patents is that, in exchange for FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE of the patented concept, the owner/holder of the patent gets a reasonable amount of time (20 years in most cases) to exploit the patent for profit. At the end of that 20 years, the patent concepts become public domain and are carefully documented for the public domain.</p><p>Just tonight, I took a generic form of Coreg for my blood pressure. It's a highly effective drug that cost millions to develop. Because the original drug was patented, the method of producing it was well documented and in the public domain. The result was a box of pills that extend my life at a cost of just $7 per month!</p><p>Do away with drug patents and you won't see cheaper drugs, you'll see more expensive drugs, and a rapid halt of forward progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents are n't perfect .
No form of IP is - all forms of IP are a compromise.But in large part , ( perhaps excepting software patents and MAYBE gene patents ) the concept of a " patent " gets it RIGHT ! !
! In the area of pharmaceuticals , If you do away with patents , then you lose the endless supply of 20-year-old innovation you now know as " generic drugs " because the deal with patents is that , in exchange for FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE of the patented concept , the owner/holder of the patent gets a reasonable amount of time ( 20 years in most cases ) to exploit the patent for profit .
At the end of that 20 years , the patent concepts become public domain and are carefully documented for the public domain.Just tonight , I took a generic form of Coreg for my blood pressure .
It 's a highly effective drug that cost millions to develop .
Because the original drug was patented , the method of producing it was well documented and in the public domain .
The result was a box of pills that extend my life at a cost of just $ 7 per month ! Do away with drug patents and you wo n't see cheaper drugs , you 'll see more expensive drugs , and a rapid halt of forward progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents aren't perfect.
No form of IP is - all forms of IP are a compromise.But in large part, (perhaps excepting software patents and MAYBE gene patents) the concept of a "patent" gets it RIGHT!!
!In the area of pharmaceuticals, If you do away with patents, then you lose the endless supply of 20-year-old innovation you now know as "generic drugs" because the deal with patents is that, in exchange for FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE of the patented concept, the owner/holder of the patent gets a reasonable amount of time (20 years in most cases) to exploit the patent for profit.
At the end of that 20 years, the patent concepts become public domain and are carefully documented for the public domain.Just tonight, I took a generic form of Coreg for my blood pressure.
It's a highly effective drug that cost millions to develop.
Because the original drug was patented, the method of producing it was well documented and in the public domain.
The result was a box of pills that extend my life at a cost of just $7 per month!Do away with drug patents and you won't see cheaper drugs, you'll see more expensive drugs, and a rapid halt of forward progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667884</id>
	<title>Stupid from the start - patent system</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1269943680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can you imagine someone holding the patent to theory of gravity ? or equations of momentum, or theory of relativity ?</p><p>well, this is what would happen if these were discovered in our time. some bastard would go patent them and claim 'rights' on them.</p><p>its no different than patenting a gene. a gene is not an invention, not a creation. it is something that existed for millions of years, in the body of every human that has walked the earth. there is no way in hell that it would have any logic granting 'rights' on those.</p><p>really. time is long past for abolition of trade and copyright systems. they have turned into a medieval land grab moving toward intellectual feudalism. better to stop these things at the start than try to fight them off later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can you imagine someone holding the patent to theory of gravity ?
or equations of momentum , or theory of relativity ? well , this is what would happen if these were discovered in our time .
some bastard would go patent them and claim 'rights ' on them.its no different than patenting a gene .
a gene is not an invention , not a creation .
it is something that existed for millions of years , in the body of every human that has walked the earth .
there is no way in hell that it would have any logic granting 'rights ' on those.really .
time is long past for abolition of trade and copyright systems .
they have turned into a medieval land grab moving toward intellectual feudalism .
better to stop these things at the start than try to fight them off later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can you imagine someone holding the patent to theory of gravity ?
or equations of momentum, or theory of relativity ?well, this is what would happen if these were discovered in our time.
some bastard would go patent them and claim 'rights' on them.its no different than patenting a gene.
a gene is not an invention, not a creation.
it is something that existed for millions of years, in the body of every human that has walked the earth.
there is no way in hell that it would have any logic granting 'rights' on those.really.
time is long past for abolition of trade and copyright systems.
they have turned into a medieval land grab moving toward intellectual feudalism.
better to stop these things at the start than try to fight them off later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31668574</id>
	<title>Re:Let me play Devil's advocate.</title>
	<author>Tanuki64</author>
	<datestamp>1269952920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Here's the point of patents: you have to reveal how it works.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Just forget it. I have some experience with patents. Even helped writing an application. The usual way to do it is to omit important parts and tweak some parameters so that it is not too obvious, but makes it almost useless for 3rd parties.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the point of patents : you have to reveal how it works .
Just forget it .
I have some experience with patents .
Even helped writing an application .
The usual way to do it is to omit important parts and tweak some parameters so that it is not too obvious , but makes it almost useless for 3rd parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the point of patents: you have to reveal how it works.
Just forget it.
I have some experience with patents.
Even helped writing an application.
The usual way to do it is to omit important parts and tweak some parameters so that it is not too obvious, but makes it almost useless for 3rd parties.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666434</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31671490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31668516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31670570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31674256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31668574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31670644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31668546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31675240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31670664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_2355233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2355233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31670664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2355233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31670644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2355233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31665992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31668546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31674256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666192
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31667320
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31675240
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31671490
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31670570
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2355233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2355233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2355233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31669910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2355233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2355233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31668574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2355233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2355233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31668516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_2355233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_2355233.31666476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
