[tehwalrus]

> Won't new plants and animals increase biodiversity?

The issue here isn't that - new plants and animals may be good or bad, but that's an environmental argument. My concern is allowing people to patent biochemistry/DNA sequences, which is clearly bad.

EU law doesn't allow software patents, perhaps it's time to define DNA as a computer program, thus making it illegal to patent it.

[ronaldx]

>My concern is allowing people to patent biochemistry/DNA sequences, which is clearly bad.

I was thinking about this earlier but I concluded that it was morally no different than any other form of patent - and modestly comparible to patents on new drugs (or software, indeed).

For example - the protection afforded by patents on new drugs is said to justify the amount spent by the pharmaceutical industry on R&D/drug discovery.

Why is the argument different for seeds/DNA sequences, or any other invention that benefits humanity, if it is?

[Retric]

The problem seed manufactures get to enforce useless patents. Step 1, patent junk DNA. Step 2, prevent farmers from using seed banks due to useless patent. Step 3, profit.

Net value to society... Nothing.

[ronaldx]

This argument is against patenting 'junk' DNA: but European and American patent law both require a patent to have industrial application and to be novel.

So, I find it unlikely that this situation should apply in practice (although it is worrying that it might apply). And, I don't find it an argument against patenting useful non-junk DNA.

Note: I'm probably on your side, at least in that I dislike implementation of patent law in general.

[jrkelly]

Well computer programs are protectable by copyright. I work in this field (at a startup) and I think it may be better if we were allowed to protect engineered DNA sequences with copyright as you suggest. Would be less expensive and faster than patents.

There is actually a company looking to take this idea to court: http://www.nature.com/news/bioengineers-look-beyond-patents-...

"Last year, the company petitioned for US copyright protection of the DNA sequence for a fluorescent green protein, without success, but has launched an appeal. Its plan, says Christopher Holman, a law professor at the University of Missouri–Kansas City who is working with DNA2.0, is to pursue the appeal until the issue is heard in court."

It took a similar case to make software copyrightable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright#History_in_t...

[phryk]

I think it may be better if we were allowed to protect engineered DNA sequences with copyright as you suggest.

Aren't patents at least not applicable to non-commercial uses? Using copyright seems even worse.

I'm against any legal protection of any DNA sequence. This seems like the sort of thing that doesn't just have the potential to greatly stifle innovation but also to take on a very dystopian shape…

[jrkelly]

>This seems like the sort of thing that doesn't just have >the potential to greatly stifle innovation

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure how we'd be able to do our business (years of work to develop an engineered microbe) if someone could just take it when we're done. Maybe we could keep it as trade secret and let no one else see it, but that's probably even worse long term for innovation.

I'm for a balanced approach to IP, but total removal of IP would basically prevent any real innovation in biotech with the tech of today. No one would do the original development, it's just way too expensive.

[phryk]

Could you be more specific?

Yes, sorry. I tend to only look at the long term where my personal version of a better society would be one where at least all the production of all the base needs (if not more) is automated and we have deprecated money.

Commercial development will need some sort of protection if it is to be profitable, of course. But there we can for instance directly say that these sorts of protective measures are not applied at all to non-commercial applications.

My thought of train is normally more rooted in the open source way of development, which I think will become more dominant in the next few decades. The resulting openness would enable more cooperation, even between similar projects. Something which is pretty much explicitly excluded in the competitive model.

IP might be needed for competitive development, but I think cooperative development bears much higher potential for innovation.

Sorry if this is a bit garbled intellectually, I'm in the process of picking up my stuff and heading home for the weekend.