Restrictive Patents a Bad Thing?

I really look forward to reading Doom9's news section and especially the Michael Chrichton article mentioned today (21st March). The author describes how he disapproves of patents relating to natural conditions such as diseases and genetic construction, and how a commercial organisation can effectively claim to "own" a naturally occuring relationship by buying a patent. That's if I understand it correctly. Could this not be a "Good Thing" for most of us? I suffer from heart disease and, although I am financially comfortable, I cannot afford to be extravagant because I am unable to work. Just one of those things that people all over the world have to adjust to. Or is it? Throughout life in general, the privelege of ownership also involves a level of responsibility. For example, in exchange for the privelege of owning my own property I must ensure that bits of my roof do not fall on people. If one of my roofing tiles injures a passerby, I can be sued because I am the owner of the property. Of course, it's impossible to sue anyone for a naturally occurring disease because it's an Act of God, or it's an act of nature, or there is no owner in law to claim against. But, apparently, there may now be someone to sue: the corporation that "owns" the disease through its patent. Am I writing drivel or are there some lawyers out there who would like to comment?

interesting idea. so a corporation is breaching it's duty of care because it owns genes that don't perform perfectly? i think that'd only be valid if some product made using the patented genes/processes/whatever causes some damage later on. examples are GM crops that cross-breed with non GM plants via cross-pollenation, causing a loss for the farmer of non-GM stuff who can no longer claim the "GM free" slogan. however, i don't think any cases of this have actually been tested in court, and even if they were, the suit would probably be against the rival farmer who allowed their pollens to spread. but then IANAL. but to be honest, the idea of things like genes, natural processes or even species being owned and controlled by anyone at all gives me the flying willies. i don't throw this term around much at all, but i would call it evil. perhaps you should rent out "the corporation" and watch it. it's one of the most frightening things i've ever seen, though the style it's presented in can seem a little odd.

Owning a patent provides the owner with no responsibility. Some patent owners do nothing other than shaking down others they accuses of violating the patents. This group of patent owners may generate many frivolous patents or buy patents, with the only intent of shaking down others, which generally interferes with progress. They have no intention of discovering anything. On the other side of the coin are serious researchers and scientists who deserve compensation for their discoveries and who benefit us when they're given the incentives that patent protection exists for. Why should this apply any less to natural conditions? The current strength of patent and copyright protection far exceeds the constitutional and optimal degrees.

you know, lets just pool together our money and patent things like: oh lets say, concrete, or steel or how about clothing?, or electricity even!!! If we beat corp. to these patents, it will show the stupid patent office how stupid they really are. Patents like these would force them to change their practices, mostly because the world couldn't afford to pay the royalties on those things. Does adam work for the patent office?

No I don't work for the patent office but I deal with those guys all the time. I'm an attorney and I do alot of intellectual property work but not patents, and I'd never want to. Its literally another language. But there's alot of overlap with what I do so...

Interesting stuff but more than a little depressing. I wonder how a supposedly civilised society can tie itself up in knots. Money talks, I suppose. I still think that there should be some element of responsibility involved with patents, to prevent what appears to be a "money for nothing" philosphy. It often looks suspiciously like legalised extortion to me.