Patenting Genes

Patenting Genes

So we've all heard of patents pertaining to physical inventions like phones and computers. But what about something that isn't necessarily man-made? Like genes.

In the world of biotechnology, an ongoing controversy over whether or not genes can be patented has generated much concern not only among companies but also individuals. So what does it really mean to patent genes? Well, what it boils down to is the DNA sequence that comprises a gene that has known function. Companies have an invested interest in patenting genes because if they own the patent to a particular gene, no other biotechnology company can use or sell what they produce with that gene. This certainly makes sense since companies and their investors may put millions of dollars of research into one gene. Currently, genes that can be patented are those that are artificially created and are not found in nature. This makes sense because if you engineer a gene that serves a particular function (such as "eating oil") and that gene is not natural, it should considered man-made and therefore patent protectable. The real controversial debate comes from whether or not you can patent natural genes, particularly those of human genes.

Recently, the Supreme Court overruled a ruling that human genes can be patented. Myraid Genetics Inc. a biotechnology company located in Salt Lake City, owned a patent for "two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer" for over a decade ago. Myraid Genetics Inc., since then, has been the only company allowed to conduct research and issue diagnostics (which can cost over $3000) on these genes, an issue that many believe is unfair. Courts had to decide "whether or not isolated genes are products of nature or man-made inventions." A CBS news anchor also stated, "we shouldn't be limited to something as basic as our own DNA. The human genome still holds secrets that can save lives and you can't put a price tag, or a patent, on that." Now that the Supreme Court has denied the ability for companies to patent human genes, a precedence will be set that will certainly affect many new biotechnology research in the future.

I think that patents on genes should not be allowed because it raises an ethical issue. Say a company did a diagnostics on you and found a gene that they wanted to own, does that company now own a part of you? Without patents however, companies may find it too risky to invest that much time and money in research if they can't own rights to what they end up discovering. What do you think of gene patents? Do you think that companies should have the right to own human genes?

Article and Image Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/human-genes-patent-supreme-court_n_1380990.html

Software Patents

Software Patents

When we think of patents, we usually think of physical inventions being patented by their inventor(s). But what about something slightly less concrete, like software?

Right now, the United States Patent and Trademark Office doesn't see software as anything different from regular a invention. In fact there is nothing that "specifically delineates between hardware and software." In the past, many software patents have been rejected by the Patent Office because they believe that "software is ultimately just the automated expression of various algorithms and math..." And since you can't patent math, many software patents have been rejected. There is a fine line between the boundaries of "just math" and a "patentable invention."

This patent system is flawed in this sense because you could say that any invention can be considered an extension of "math." Take of example the TurboTap beer nozzle, invented by a student at the University of Wisconsin. The device allows beer to be poured faster with less foam because of its long shape and internal structure. One could argue that his invention is just a "clever application of fluid dynamics." The argument is still in the air, are software patents truly legitimate and patentable patents? According to The Verge, "The problem isn't software patents - the problem is that software patents don't actually exist."

As a developer, I think the answer is controversial because much of computer science has been built on collaborative and shared ideas. However if a company spends millions in developing complex algorithms, that company should certainly own some rights to it. If someone patents software, what would it mean for someone else to use a similar method of programming? How would it be enforced?

What do you think about patenting software? Do you think the argument that any physical invention could just be considered an application of math?

Original Article: http://www.theverge.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/

Patents Hinder Innovation

Patents Hinder Innovation

The patent system was established in 1790 as a way to protect inventors and their inventions. The idea of the patent system was more or less simple, you surrender your idea to the public (basically letting everyone know) and in return you own rights that protect your idea from being used by otherwise without your permission. Sounds like a pretty good idea right?

Unfortunately, that system no longer works as well as it used it. Today, technology grows, innovates, and improves on so many existing inventions that makes it hard to tell whether or not the original patent holder of something fundamental in technology can sue everyone who uses it. Furthermore, some patents in technology are so broad and ambiguous that it makes arguing certain ideas and innovations even more difficult. And to make things even worse, there are now plenty of firms whose businesses are to buy up patents, then sue people who they think are possibly infringing on them. Otherwise known as "patent trolls," these companies are truly abusing the patent system.

I think that the patent system now hinders innovation rather than protecting or helping it because of those flaws. Patents aren't cheap either, an inventor looking to patent his or her idea may find themselves deep in patent and layer fees; which ultimately detracts from the innovation (i.e. money being spent on issuing patents could be used to develop the innovation). Even worse are new innovations that are destroyed because a patent troll decides to sue over some idea they believe they own. Not only is money being misused, innovators are intimidated and hesitant when coming up with a new idea because the possibility of infringing on someone's ideas can result in huge and, more often than not, unreasonable costs.

What are your thoughts on the patent system? Do you think that the patent system should be remodeled? Do patent trolls really have the ethical rights to do sue just for the purpose of money?

Image and article source: www.eff.org

"Rectangle with rounded edges"

"Rectangle with rounded edges"

It's been almost a month since Apple won the case against Samsung; complaining that Samsung infringed on multiple design patents in many of their mobile and tablet devices. In an NPR article, Robert Brunner, an industrial designer, says that patenting something so fundamental as a "rectangle with rounded edges" makes it so that there isn't "a lot of room to be creative." With smartphones becoming so ubiquitous, is Apple going to far to sue companies over such a fundamental design? Many certainly have mixed opinions. Supporters of Apple would easily say that the design was innovated by Apple and they solely own the rights to it; while others would argue that the claim is too ambiguous and unfair.

What does this mean to consumers? Well, there will undoubtedly be an impact on how smartphone manufacturers design new phones. Now that there has been a precedence siding with Apple, other manufacturers will have a harder time battling Apple over design infringements. In a press statement released shortly after the verdict, Samsung said that the verdict was a "loss for American consumers." Innovation in technology nowadays often builds on existing inventions, either improving a design or putting a different spin on it. The biggest stakeholder in this verdict isn't Apple or Samsung, it's the consumer. With Apple tightly enforcing its intellectual property, other companies will have a hard time innovating new phones and therefore won't be able to offer consumers more options.

Do you think Apple's patent is too ambiguous or unfair, or do you believe that it is completely in their right? How do you see this verdict from a consumer perspective?


Image and article source: www.npr.org

Welcome to My Blog

Welcome to the Patents in Technology Blog

My name is Brian Yang and I'm a freshmen at Stanford University. This blog is part of a class called Computers and the Open Society taught by professor Terry Winograd. The class talks about how computers, and primarily the Internet, have affected our open society. The Internet is such an integral part of the modern society that it's impossible to ignore the impact it has made in every industry and aspect of our world. From education to business to our personal lives, the Internet has truly been a revolutionary invention. Speaking of inventions, registering a patent is often an important step to creating a new invention. With all the new innovations in the technology, many patents have been issued on designs, processes, methods, and ideas. Nowadays, patents have been a hot topic in technology as many large companies are taking advantage of their patent ownership. Consequently, many controversial issues have arisen the way companies are handling patents. This blog will show examples and situations regarding patents in technology and provide a few of my opinions on such issues. Thanks for reading!


Image source: www.engadget.com