Posts by Paul Campbell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Scott: so taking a list of bases and creating a genome (an expression of that idea) would be copyright?
I realise we're on the cutting edge here - but think of it this way - the genome is an embodiment of a set of instructions that can perform certain actions (create proteins that can do other things) just like a computer program is a set of instructions that perform certain actions
You can copyright the program because it's an embodiment of the idea and patent its use in a process to transform one thing to another
Equally I'd argue that a strand of DNA is an embodiment of a genome and can be copyrighted - and it's use in a process (creating a particular drug for example) could be patented.
(maybe I should have used 'DNA' when I used 'genome' above)
-
I guess the way I look at it is that copyright applies to information and patents applies to processes - you copyright a genome, you patent something you can do with a newly invented gene is a process
-
Well I have something like 20-odd patents with my name on them - they're mostly all shite, the product of employer's attempts to build a legal fortress against competitor's potential law suits - maybe 3 of them are things I'm actually proud of - genuinely unique ideas that I actually think ought to be patentable.
That's one of the main problem with the current patent system - it's the death of a 1000 cuts - everywhere you turn someone's patented the bleeding obvious and you can spend all your time designing around them - the patent system is supposed to be there so that people are encouraged to disclose bright ideas so that others can build on them and create even better stuff - these days it's become something that's used to do almost exactly the opposite.
Which gets us back to protecting new genetic entities - genetics is basically programming writ in DNA I think we run the same risk we do with programming of ending up with the death of a 1000 cuts - I think you should be able to patent applications, but not genomes, any more that you can patent a particular software program (just a use of one in a process).
Equally copyright should apply to genomes - but at some minimal size - you can't copyright a single character, or even a word, equally I don't think you should be able to copyright a sinhle base pair, or for that matter anything shorter than some minimal length - lets say 100 base pairs just as a strawman. Unless the entire genome is de-novo you shouldn't be able to copyright the bits you didn't invent.
Somehow we have to be able to protect stuff that shows up in nature through normal
reproduction too - just because you created a new type of apple in the lab doesn't mean you should own the hybrids that show up in the wild, whether they contain your DNA that you let loose or DNA created by natural hybridisation - in essence you need genetic copy protection if you want to claim copyright and only the first ongoing copy is covered by law - so if you release a new breed of apple and it copies its DNA and releases it as pollen you're out of luck (remember new apple varieties are sold and reproduce by cloning, not using pollen).What I do think is dangerous is applying copyright to our genome - do you want some giant corporation telling you you can't breed (or even perform simple cellular replication) just because you've picked up some sequence in your DNA, even if you ate some GE corn and some of it hung around. I think we need to say that once you have any sequence in your particular genome you have a life time license to make as many copies of it as you like, including making more humans - who automatically get licenses at birth.
-
Bart - I kind of draw the line at being able to copyright or patent a genome - I think that way lies all sorts of potential future evils - should I have registered my kids at the patent office when they were born? (or the copyright office? and if so are they a derived work or a wholly new one - I did seriously consider sending in some toenail clippings)
-
Re the Greens' stance on GE, I think they need to make a distinction between the manipulation of naturally-occuring genotypes and the creation of genetic hybrids using genes from entirely different organisms.
you mean like the current H1H1 which has 5 swine-flu genes, 2 avian flu genes and 1 human-flu genes? mother nature works that way too - with organisms incorporating DNA from other organisms all the time - often much less related than flu viruses (time to thank whoever donated mitochondria to our genome)
I agree we should be extremely careful doing that sort of thing, but if the result is a farm full of happily grazing pigs with a little bit of human DNA who can be 'milked' over their lifetime to make human insulin, or can donate cells that will live within the human body to do the same I don't think that's necessarily bad - 'mixing of DNA is evil' sounds a bit like something that comes down from a religious anti-miscegenation tract
-
so you will be voting for the party that promises a lake? or maybe a canal rather than a motorway?
-
Tim: yes - in fact with a good southerly liquid nitrogen is unnecessary and a simple trepanation will suffice
-
Ms Lee is obviously wrong - the new motorway will make it easier for .....
-
I suspect they're mostly worried that Manakau will go and spend all that it invested/saved in Auckland Airport etc on something like swimming pools or some other local amenities before the rest of Auckland can get their hands on it
-
National decided to flirt
with winning the seat Mt Albert
but then they nixed the tunnel
which meant traffic will funnel
thru houses and parks, it will hurt