There is one particular comment written by BC with regards to a patent owned by Archemix that covers all RNA aptamers that I'd like to share with you:
My data point is talks with key a key scientific advisory board member of the company - they bought it from Gold's company, Gilead, IIRC (see wikipedia's aptamer page).There are small companies such as Q-RNA that are based specifically on a single aptamer or class of aptamers (not clear to me from QRNA's site) and if they didn't get grandfather'ed then I'd say they're at the mercy of the patent holder.
I don't have the answer to the patent problem, but I do think it's a problem and that with some creativity and effort, a solution could be developed that all parties (the public vs those with a vested financial stake in a particular gene patent or technology patent such as aptamers) could accept.
Patents were designed to encourage R&D, but in this case an overarching patent that covers way too much can only act to stifle technological advance. The owner of this patent can only act as a parasite. The situation reminds me of the mob boss going door to door asking for "protection money". Any thoughts out there?
[The Scienceblogs spam filter is quite erratic. Quite a few of your comments like the one above have been marked as spam. So if you ever get the "comments will be approved" message feel free to email me (and I encourage you to email your Map that Campus Solutions - here is a recent unspammed answer to MTC XXVI).]
- Log in to post comments
There has been considerable debate recently in the biomedical community as to whether or not patents actually inhibit research.
In my opinion, having done over $100,000 of consulting to Patent Law firms, the system is bent almost to the breaking point.
Don't get me started on software patents, either. Those wiped out a big part of my previous earnings.
Someone alive to day will be the Bill Gates of RNA. Unless we fix the problem, that person will almost surely NOT be an American.
I completely agree with your point of view Alex. I remember when I first started my PhD I learned that people held patents on cDNA sequences. I was flabergasted. Patents are an important part of the capitalist system and in general I think they are a good thing, but, overarching or simple discovery (in the case of cDNAs) patents do not protect actual intellectual investment, rather, they cover your rear for all the things you never thought of that might make you a buck when someone else has a great idea. If I ever find myself in a position to have influence over patent reform in biomedical/medical sciences I will fight like heck to get it to make sense.
BTW- chemistry also seems to have some serious issues with this problem. I'm sure you are aware of Derek Lowe's blog "In the pipeline" (I think I first found your blog through his -- he quoted you on something). He has addressed these issues in a similar tone from time to time.
that person will almost surely NOT be an American.
Why does the nationality of the greedy bastard matter?