Hi Gene
Michael Crichton in today's New York Times makes a very convincing case against patenting of genetic patterns. I confess that I'm not very savvy on this issue, but if most of what he claims in this op-ed is true, I'm appalled.
He explains that the genetic markers for some diseases (20 of them so far) like Hepatitis C are patented. Researchers wishing to develop a cure for the disease have to pay royalties to the patent-holder.
Crichton blames the overworked patent office for misreading a Supreme Court ruling and issuing these kinds of patents. Two Congressman, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, and Dave Weldon, a Republican of Florida, have introduced a new bill to make these kind of patents illegal.
I worry about the twisting of the intent of patents. Historically they were granted to innovators and inventors to give them a reasonable period in which they could recover their investment and reward them with some profit for their risk-taking. Fine by me--that makes sense. The point of patents, like certain tax measures like capital gains treatments for long-term investments, reward the person who does the work.
But what about genes? They are discovered, not invented. Not only that, but it seems to me that the whole idea of allowing patents on these patterns has the opposite from the desirable effect--stifling innovation and punishing creativity.
We have lost our way. Just like copyright law has become a wealth creation device for the already wealthy, so has patent law become something that big companies use to squash the little guy. IBM, for instance, has over 40,000 patents. The much venerated Thomas Edison only had 1093 patents in his lifetime.
I hope that this bill passes. It's unfortunate that truly important issues like draconian intellectual property laws or global warming get virtually no press, no debate and no solution.
Posted on February 13, 2007
