[avar]

    > That's an argument against patents existing at all.

No it's not.

It's not an argument for or against patents, I'm pointing out that @aroch is wrong about them "patenting the processes".

That's not true for most of these patents, they're patenting isolated organisms, compounds or genes. I.e. the end result, not the process.

What incentives we should give individuals and corporations to advance biotechnology is another matter.

[Dylan16807]

>That's not true for most of these patents, they're patenting isolated organisms, compounds or genes. I.e. the end result, not the process.

Organisms and genes are machines. There's nothing new about patenting specific machines.

Could they really get a patent on "bacteria that secretes X" that would stop you from doing it in a completely different manner?

But if you insert the same gene into the same bacteria using different equipment, that's no better than making the same patented gear with a different manufacturing method.

[talideon]

There's nothing stopping you from doing that, even with a patent in place, so long as your mechanism for secreting X (such as using a different base organism) is different.

To give an analogy, if somebody invented and patented the reciprocating piston engine, and then somebody else came along and invented a rotary engine, such as the wankel engine, the inventor of the former wouldn't have a claim against the latter because, while the result is the same (a drive shaft gets turned), the mechanism is different. Sure, it's possible that the inventor of the former could threaten the inventor of the former, as many patent trolls do, but legally they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Now, if the gene itself is the critical part of the 'invention', and not the organism, then taking that same gene and inserting it into a different organism still leaves you open to patent infringement. But that assumes the gene itself has been engineered, as opposed to having been found in an existing organism.