DOCSLIB.ORG

At a Glance Draft.V1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
At a Glance Draft.V1 Gabriel Ben-Dor Stanford-Brown iGEM 2012 September 2012 AT A GLANCE Ethics of Gene Patenting: Moral, Legal, and Practical Perspectives Moral Issues Patenting Genes is like “Owning” Something Human For • The human genome is part of a “common humanity.” Patenting genes violates that humanity. • An individual’s genome is a personal sacred thing. To profiteer off the nuance differences (e.g. mutation) between one human and another would be a violation of the personal nature of genes. • A patent grants the owner the right to exclude everyone else from access or usage (to a gene lets say); no one else being allowed to use something without your permission can be analogous to “owning” Against • In reality, gene patents do not apply to genetic material as it natural occurs in our body. Thus, human sanctity is maintained. • A patent only prevents others from using your ideas. It does not grant ownership. Monopoly on a Medical Treatment/Service For • Being able to patent genetic material is what leads to development of treatments in the first place; patented ideas secure investors • Laws of supply and demand dictate fair price for consumers Against • Limits options for patients • Can lead to overpricing of medical treatments Fear of Global Injustice For • A patent owner could deny or make it expensive/difficult for • Laws of supply and demand dictate fair price for consumers Against • All people should have equal access to knowledge and use derived from gene research • Third world countries, serving minimal risk of competition, that would benefit immensely could be denied Legal Issues “Sufficiently Isolated or Transformed” Sufficient • Isolated and/or manipulated genes are a product of human ingenuity • Isolating genes changes the original structure of DNA and turns it into a similar but new structure. In other words, through purification, genes and their function can become something new practically. Insufficient • Genes, whether isolated or manipulated, as essentially just information and that is where their value stems from. These life instructions should not be controlled. • Synthetic biologists find many patents involve procedures that standard in the industry. A gene is not that different in our out of the body (e.g. Is a PCR and adding biobrick cut sites really enough?) The Non-obviousness Requirement Sentiments that threshold to meet this requirement is too low • What a Federal Appeals Court and the average synthetic biology consider to be obvious may not correspond; a scientist could consider patented parts to be quite customary and expected. • Gene patents some may argue can be considered to have more “discovery” like character than “invention.” The Utility Requirement: The Specificity of the Claimed Use Sentiments of Insufficiently Specified • Many patent claims are too general. • Patent holder may simply want to cover every possibility they could use. • “Current available forms” is not being stretched Practical Issues Benefits of Patents: Motivation and Innovation • Private Ownership of IP attracts and boosts investment • Owner gets credibility • Can generate revenue for licensing • Foundational Patents and Fear of Litigation • Far reaching patents increase fear of litigation • Firms could buy as many gene patents as possible in a low key fashion, suddenly emerging as the holder when large investments are at stake Patent Thickets For • “there are a number of companies [with] some degree of patent protection, it would seem unlikely that one group…would be able to hold a ‘monopoly’ on anything.” Against • It could be argued that patenting more than is intended or able to immediately work on makes research on patented items unavailable for the rest of the scientific community • Thicket owners could be forced to eventually share licensing and royalties. This cross-licensing is sub-optimal and caps incentives. • if genes are to be patented, it should be done so as specific composite parts. Weighing Different Solutions Completely Open Source For • Research is accelerated by the public sharing of ideas and creations Against • Hinder an investor’s incentive to help develop research into the product Copyleft For • The inventor/writer can get credit and legal benefits without restricting any use • Cheap Against • Only covers original works of expression. Would not be able to apply to syn bio • Could lower incentives for IP; requiring to have free licensing may cause investors to have to fear competition and might be less inclined to invest Patentleft For • Can apply to genes more so that copyleft • The inventor/writer can get credit and legal benefits without restricting any use Against • More expensive than copyleft • Could lower incentives for IP; requiring to have free licensing may cause investors to have to fear competition and might be less inclined to invest Patent Non-Assertion Model For • Enables synthetic biology to grow without hindering IP investment interest Against • More nuanced patent agreement: nuance requires better lawyers, and better lawyers often equate a greater financial expense for an individual synthetic biologist .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How to Sustain Technology and Make It Profitable While Avoiding IP Conflicts
    How to sustain technology and make it profitable while avoiding IP conflicts Harvard Biotechnology Journal Club meeting, Feb 22nd 2017 Julian Daich, fellow at the Wound Healing and Tissue Engineering Lab, BWH, supervised by Dennis Orgill Patents First established in Venice in 1450, patents are a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention Source: Wikipedia A patent – grants a monopoly over a technological niche – does not guarantee freedom to operate – standard formal structure ● State of the art ● Full description of the invention with examples ● Claims- sentences that define the scope to be enforced a patent application has to show novelty and non obviousness – Empowerment. Patents are a legal basis for priority access to a technological niche – Freedom. Patents are a legal stamp that guarantees protection from other patents Defensive vs offensive ● Big corps dealing with ● Big corps pursuing to many technologies and monopolize a niche parties ● Newcomers attempting ● Newcomers attempting to capture a niche to access to an existing ● Non practitioners niche ● Patent trolls ● Technological standards and frameworks ● Can either accelerate or stop innovation ● Do not harm innovation Patent SWOT ● Strengths ● Weakness – Empower to develop – Discourage making new technology developments or – Encourage to share improvements to already knowledge patented technology ● Opportunities ● Threats – Create new technological – Ambigous patents can niches and markets be used to block technology development or to obtain economical benefits at expenses of authentic innovation Patentleft ● Person A has a patent, and licenses it under a patentleft license.
    [Show full text]
  • Business and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software
    Business and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software OUCS, 12 January 2009 What we will cover: ● Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks ● Software Patents and FOSS ● Sustainability and Business Models ● Some Project Examples ● Conclusion Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks (1) ● Many within the FOSS community reject the idea that a FOSS licence is a contract ● This is mainly for practical reasons, as contract law varies widely between countries, and is relatively expensive to litigate. ● In comparison IP law and specifically copyright law is more uniform, being the subject of numerous international treaties ● They argue that there is thus no need for explicit acceptance – the licensor either abides by the conditions of the licence or has no licence ● Thus enforcement of licence conditions is traditionally undertaken by asserting copyright infringement (no licence) rather than contractual breach Enforcement, Exclusions and Risks (2) ● Exclusions of warranty and limitations of liability in all current FOSS licences are drafted to be effective under US law. Note: The GNU GPL v3 allows the inclusion of additional, regionalised exclusions and limitations. ● Occasionally the legal basis for the enforceability of FOSS licences is challenged, for example Wallace v. FSF, where it was argued that the GPL was a form of price-fixing and Jacobsen v. Katzer, where it was argued that a FOSS licensor must rely on contract law to enforce their conditions (both failed) ● Many FOSS licences do not specify a jurisdiction in which disputes should be resolved (and some specify inappropriate jurisdictions) Software Patents and FOSS ● Traditionally staff charged with exploiting software IP generated in UK Higher Education have considered the obtaining of software patents.
    [Show full text]
  • Replace This with the Actual Title Using All Caps
    UNPACKING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF SHARING 3D DIGITAL DESIGNS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IP AND BEYOND A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Stephanie Michelle Santoso December 2019 © 2019 Stephanie Michelle Santoso UNPACKING THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF SHARING DIGITAL DESIGNS AMONG 3D PRINTING USERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IP AND BEYOND Stephanie Michelle Santoso, Ph. D. Cornell University 2019 This doctoral research identifies and examines the challenges that 3D printing users face in creating and sharing digital design files, hardware and documentation related to intellectual property and other critical issues. In particular, this thesis describes the processes that 3D printing users undertake in leveraging Creative Commons (CC) and other approaches to securing IP rights. To investigate these questions, I employ a theoretical lens informed by the social construction of technology, free innovation and recursive publics. Through a combination of 20 open-ended interviews with members of the 3D printing community, the development of three in-depth case studies and additional secondary data analyses, I find that fewer members of the community use Creative Commons than originally expected and that there are persistent gaps in the understanding of how Creative Commons can be useful for the sharing of digital design files, hardware and documentation. While the original goals of this research focused more specifically on the IP issues facing 3D printing users, the overall findings of these activities provide broader insights around how users of a particular technology, in this case 3D printing, engage in different kinds of practices around sharing what they have created and the ways that these behaviors create an active community committed to perpetuating the creation of new knowledge, solutions and objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of Gene Patenting: Moral, Legal, and Practical Perspectives
    Ethics of Gene Patenting: Moral, Legal, and Practical Perspectives By Gabriel Ben-Dor Edited by Jason Hu, Bryce Bajar, and Julia Borden Stanford-Brown iGEM 2012 1. Introduction It has been estimated that approximately 20 percent of the human genome is patented.1 While this is a generalized statement, most would find this notion, at least in part, unsettling. On the black and white ends of the spectrum, there are those who deeply resent “Microbesofts” and others who see these patents as the key to innovation. As synthetic biology is a relatively new field with unprecedented possibilities, indubitably, there is a great debate surrounding gene patenting in moral, practical, and legal domains. It is questioned whether the idea of patenting an element of life is immoral: owning or treating genetic material as property is a concern, though some argue this can remedied by having a clearer understanding of what a patent really is. Beyond that philosophical debate is the fear that allowing patents of genetic material could lead to monopolies exhibiting amoral (possibly even unethical) behavior in healthcare and other industries. On the legal end, genetic patents are currently on the hot seat in the courtrooms with some patents being upheld, others not. Many academics feel that the legal patent requirements of “utility,” “non-obviousness” and “sufficiently isolated or transformed” are not being appropriately met and that there should be a higher standard for patent acceptance. From a practical perspective, in general, research (the front end) seems to benefit more from open- source systems and idea sharing, while product development (the back end) benefits from patents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Open Source Innovation Thingscon 2017
    The Power of Open Source Innovation ThingsCon 2017 Diderik van Wingerden What is Your Passion? Diderik van Wingerden Collaboration Intellectual Property Terms & Conditions Sharing Freedom Copyrights Innovation NDAs Abundance Scarcity Costs Patents Creativity Values Licensing Openness Protection Diderik van Wingerden What is Open Source? Diderik van Wingerden Open Source gives Freedom To Use, Study, Change and Share. Diderik van Wingerden Who uses Open Source Software? Diderik van Wingerden Open Source Software has won! 90% 70% Diderik van Wingerden The spirit of Open Source is spreading Bits Atoms ➢ Open Content ➢ Open Design ➢ Open Data ➢ Open Source Hardware ➢ Open Knowledge ➢ Patents ➢ Open Education ➢ Open Access ➢ Open Science ➢ ... Diderik van Wingerden Topics for today Receive Dialogue ● History ● Privacy & Security ● Benefits of Open Source ● Certification Innovation ● Ethics ● Open Licensing ● Gongban ● Business Models & Impact ● …? + You get to work on a case! Diderik van Wingerden A History of Open Source Diderik van Wingerden Open Source Software: How it began Diderik van Wingerden Pitfall #1 “I can read it, so it is Open Source.” Diderik van Wingerden Basically a legal construct Copyright All Rights Reserved Diderik van Wingerden “Free and Open Source Software” ● FOSS or FLOSS ● FSF vs. Open Source Initiative – Ethical vs. Quality and Business ● Much heat, but identical in practice Diderik van Wingerden Free Software Definition: 4 freedoms 1.Run by anyone, for any purpose 2.Study and change => access to the source code 3.Redistribute copies 4.Distribute copies of your modified versions => access to the source code gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Diderik van Wingerden Open Source Definition 1. Free Redistribution 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent-Based Open Science
    Maine Law Review Volume 59 Number 2 Symposium: Closing in on Open Science: Article 6 Trends in Intellectual Property & Scientific Research June 2007 Road Map to Revolution? Patent-Based Open Science Lee Petherbridge Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Lee Petherbridge, Road Map to Revolution? Patent-Based Open Science, 59 Me. L. Rev. 339 (2007). Available at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ROAD MAP TO REVOLUTION? PATENT-BASED OPEN SCIENCE Lee Petherbridge, Ph.D I. INTRODUCTION II. A TOPOGRAPHY OF INNOVATION AND LAW IN THE LIFE SCIENCES A. The Industrial Infrastructure: Integrating Public and Private Science B. The Legal Infrastructure: A Proprietary Approach I. The Innovation Suppressive Cost of Monopoly 2. Additional Innovation Suppressive Costs III. A THEORY OF OPEN LIFE SCIENCE A. Open Science B. To Open Science from Open Source I. Addressing Fixed Costs 2. Peer Worker Potential 3. Issues of Modularity and Granularity 4. Subsequent (Mis)appropriation IV. TOWARD A PATENT-BASED OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK A. Establishing a Patent Servitude B. Patent Servitudes in Operation C. Additional Considerations V. CONCLUDING REMARKS HeinOnline -- 59 Me. L. Rev. 339 2007 340 MAINE LAW REVIEW [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Software: Licenses and Patents
    FORUM!LIVE FORUM!Live More than just online: interactive | anywhere | with any device Open Source Software: Licenses and Patents FORUM!Live brings the course to you TOPICS YOUR SPEAKER • OSS licensing models Fritz Teufel • Advantages and pitfalls in the use of OSS European Patent Attorney, • Digital patents and OSS risks and Bardehle Pagenberg, Munich (Germany) defense strategies for the OSS patent portfolio • Patent license clauses in OSS license models • Use of OSS and risk mitigation: checklists, compliance tools, OSS in patent license agreements and more 29 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2020 I ONLINE Learn Open Source Software: Licenses and Patents to mitigate risks of OSS use by developers! Aims and objectives YOUR SPEAKER Developers and their superiors need precise Fritz Teufel knowledge of the open source software European Patent Attorney, (OSS) conditions of use to be complied with Bardehle Pagenberg, if they want to integrate OSS in their own Munich (Germany) product development. Thus, they can avoid copyright violations and factual loss of their own IP rights positions. Prior to joining IP firm Bardehle Pagenberg in 2006, Fritz Teufel has spent most of his professional career with IBM in various positions. Learn to avoid possible copyright and patent law pitfalls when using different OSS From 1990 to 2005, Fritz Teufel was Head of Patents licensing models. You will be given plenty of and Copyrights with IBM Deutschland GmbH. advice on how to exclude legal dangers in Previous posts had led him to Boca Raton/Florida the use of OSS and will discuss examples of and Munich. internal verification and release process. Based on his long-time professional activities for IBM and his high-level involvement in German and Who should attend? international IP organizations, Fritz Teufel gained an international reputation as a renowned expert for Do you work as an in-house patent, IP or intellectual property on IT related inventions.
    [Show full text]
  • Academic Curricula
    ACADEMIC CURRICULA POSTGRADUATE DEGREE PROGRAMMES Master of Technology in Biomedical Engineering Two Years(Full Time) Learning Outcome Based Education Choice Based Flexible Credit System Academic Year 2020 - 2021 SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (Deemed to be University u/s 3 of UGC Act, 1956) Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District 603203, Tamil Nadu, India // This page is intentionally left blank SRM Institute of Science and Technology - Academic Curricula – (M.Tech Regulations 2020) 2 SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Kattankulathur, Kancheepuram District 603203, Tamil Nadu, India M.Tech in Biomedical Engineering 1. Department Vision Statement Stmt - 1 Implement science and Engineering principles in the broad area of medical Instrumentation Stmt - 2 Improve health care delivery to humans in association with physicians and surgeons Stmt - 3 Translate Biomedical Engineering research to applications that will advance and improve health care. 2. Department Mission Statement Build on a strong foundation in Basic science and Engineering and educate the students in diverse filed of Stmt - 1 Biomedical Engineering Work towards state of art Biomedical Engineering research and development through an interdisciplinary Stmt - 2 curriculum. Stmt - 3 Apply knowledge about design in development of enabling technologies for improvement of human health Stmt - 4 Promote Biomedical Engineering research with ethics in the development of novel and innovative technologies. Stmt - 5 Achieve academic excellence and stay research driven to match national and international standards. 3. Program Education Objectives (PEO) PEO - 1 To apply quantitative, qualitative, analytic and critical thinking skills to solve engineering problems. PEO - 2 To meet the expectations of the employers in the biomedical engineering domain. PEO - 3 To inculcate insight knowledge to improve quality research development in health care domain PEO - 4 To foster device development and promote Entrepreneurship skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Politics, and Culture. Lecture Notes for Course ABMA18
    Jutta Haider and Nora Schmidt Intellectual Property and Digital Information: Law, Politics, and Culture Lecture Notes for Course ABMA18. Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences Version 1.0, 2019. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3461763 About the Course Intellectual property (IP) is an area of increasing relevance and it is undergoing continuous changes, frequently being subject to highly visible controversies. Alongside these controversies the literature on IP's various facets continues to grow and is increasingly multi-disciplinary. At the same time, the decisions that information professionals, R&D personnel and artists have to face in their working lives are increasingly tied to legal concerns. The course is intended to deal with these issues from a number of different perspectives, specifically considering cultural, political, legal, but also economical aspects, including those relevant outside a Western context. It will provide an overview of the legal situation in a national, European, and international setting. Participants will gain an understanding of the various forms of IP (copyright, patent, trademark, etc.) and expanding or antagonistic concepts including the creative commons, open access, open source, and piracy. Acknowledgements These lecture notes have their origin in the course “Intellectual Property – Law, Politics and Culture”, developed and first taught by Jutta Haider at Lund University in 2011. Over the years, other teachers adopted this material: Karolina Lindh and Arwid Lund. When Nora Schmidt became the course responsible in 2017, the lecture notes received a substantial overhaul, and have been updated annually since. The co- teacher of 2017, Andrea Mervik, and the co-teacher since, Charlotte Högberg, both contributed with comments and corrections.
    [Show full text]
  • HDR Chitu Okoli 2020-12.Pdf
    Cadres de recherche pour le contenu ouvert et des modèles d’affaires pour des produits d’information Chitu Okoli To cite this version: Chitu Okoli. Cadres de recherche pour le contenu ouvert et des modèles d’affaires pour des produits d’information. Gestion et management. Université de Nantes (FR), 2020. tel-03182958 HAL Id: tel-03182958 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03182958 Submitted on 29 Mar 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Contenu ouvert et modèles d’affaires – HDR Chitu Okoli Cadres de recherche pour le contenu ouvert et des modèles d’affaires pour des produits d’information Chitu Okoli Synthèse présentée en vue de l’obtention de l’Habilitation à diriger des recherches Université de Nantes 3 décembre 2020 • Superviseur de thèse : Frantz ROWE, Professeur, Université de Nantes • Président du jury : Marc BIDAN, Professeur, Université de Nantes • Autres membres du jury : o Frédéric ADAM, Professeur, University College Cork (Irlande) o Cécile AYERBE, Professeur, Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis o Nicolas JULLIEN, Professeur, IMT Atlantique Campus de Brest 1 Contenu ouvert et modèles d’affaires – HDR Chitu Okoli Résumé Dans cette synthèse des travaux pour l’Habilitation à diriger des recherches, je commence par une introduction détaillée de mon profil de chercheur où je présente mes principaux axes de recherche.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 a Destination Beyond Capitalism: Socialism As Economic Democracy
    Chapter 4 A destination beyond capitalism: socialism as economic democracy Draft 2.1 Started June 21, 2016 November 2017 draft It is always simpler to criticize the existing state of affairs than to propose a credible alternative. This is why the names for social protest movements so often have the prefix “anti.” Anti-war mobilizations oppose a war. Anti-austerity protests oppose budget cuts. Anti-globalization protests oppose the neoliberal policies of global capitalist integration with rules favorable to multinational corporations and global finance. And even when a movement is named by its positive aspirations – the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, the women’s movement – the demands are often framed primarily as the end to something: the end to Jim Crow laws; the end to housing discrimination; the end to racial profiling by police; the end to gender discrimination in employment; the end to restrictions of marriage to heterosexual couples; the end to fracking. The issue here is not that the people involved in such movements do not have strong commitments to positive values or hopes for a very different kind of social world. The 1960s Civil Rights movement in the United States deeply embodied the emancipatory values of equality, democracy and community. The problem is that it is much more difficult to formulate unifying demands around positive alternatives than around dismantling existing oppressive arrangements. In the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, it was clear what it meant to demand the end of segregation laws; it was much less clear what it meant to demand new policies and inclusive institutions that would provide good jobs for everyone, end poverty, and empower ordinary people.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Use Exception for User-Generated Inventions
    “PATENT USE EXCEPTION FOR USER-GENERATED INVENTIONS. THE MAKER MOVEMENT MEETS PATENT LAW” Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde einer Hohen Juristischen Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität zu München vorgelegt von Natalia Weronika Lukaszewicz 2015 Referent: Prof. Dr. Annette Kur Korreferent: Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Thomas Jaeger, LL.M. Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 20. Juni 2016 2 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 7 1.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................. 9 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 10 1.4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 12 1.5 COMPOSITION OF THE WORK ........................................................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 2. WHO ARE MAKERS? ..................................................................................................................14 2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]