“”isolated genes don’t exist in nature”": sure they do, this is how individual proteins are made.

“Transcription, or RNA synthesis, is the process of creating an equivalent RNA copy of a sequence of DNA[1]. Both RNA and DNA are nucleic acids, which use base pairs of nucleotides as a complementary language that can be converted back and forth from DNA to RNA in the presence of the correct enzymes. During transcription, a DNA sequence is read by RNA polymerase, which produces a complementary, antiparallel RNA strand. As opposed to DNA replication, transcription results in an RNA compliment that includes uracil (U) in all instances where thymine (T) would have occurred in a DNA compliment.”

protein synthesis occurs because nature has devised the rules that allow RNA to recognize the beginning and end of a gene, ignore the introns, and make a protein. Nothing new or inventive about it.

“Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) is a molecule of RNA encoding a chemical “blueprint” for a protein product. mRNA is transcribed from a DNA template, and carries coding information to the sites of protein synthesis: the ribosomes. Here, the nucleic acid polymer is translated into a polymer of amino acids: a protein. In mRNA as in DNA, genetic information is encoded in the sequence of nucleotides arranged into codons consisting of three bases each. Each codon encodes for a specific amino acid, except the stop codons that terminate protein synthesis. This process requires two other types of RNA: transfer RNA (tRNA) mediates recognition of the codon and provides the corresponding amino acid, while ribosomal RNA (rRNA) is the central component of the ribosome’s protein manufacturing machinery.”

Neither scientists nor inventors created this process, the isolation of genes is part of the natural process of cell metabolism, and there is simply nothing inventive involved in isolating particular genes once we’ve identified them. Isolated wings of birds don’t occur in nature either, and if I chop one off I hardly become the inventor of a bird wing now, do I? Should I be able to patent isolated bird wings?

As for asking the question: “Who Owns You?” Scientific American asked the very same question as the title of a piece about the very same debate in March 2002. If they were irresponsible and fear-mongering too, then I’m in good company.

best,
-d

The “book” (i.e., the 9/11 Commission Report) was never written with the intent to make money on it – it is a public report. Nice try – next time, use a more relevant example.

As for “Paulo Coelho” and “Cory Doctorow,” I’ve never heard of either. I did find their websites, and that still didn’t ring a bell. I did, however, find a great many of both their books on sale at Amazon. In fact, Cory Doctorow has a book on sale that was published on October 27, 2009 (just 12 days ago). It is a hardcover on sale for $16.49 (list of $24.99). Paulo Coelho has a book that I can pre-order for $9.44 that is due to be published on April 10, 2010.

Apparently, they are still making money off their intellectual property. FYI – it is easy to be altruistic when you have money. Just ask Gates and Rockefeller.

Giving items away from free is a pretty long-standing practice in many business. Go to the local grocery store and you’ll find some table set up with somebody cooking up something to give away for free in the hopes someone may buy more of it. However, the fact the something is given away for free for marketing purposes does not prove your point.

“Filmmaker Nina Paley gave away her movie so that anyone could download it or show it without paying her, and found that she was able to get more attention and money because of it.”
How did she make her money. What did she sell? Using Nina’s own words to describe one of her works “Nina’s Adventures was a labor of love, but it didn’t pay the rent.” Hmmm … it seems that the ability to “pay the rent” is important. BTW – if you read her bio, she isn’t in it to make money. As I’ve said before, the fact that you can find some altruistic soles out there willing to give away their IP for free doesn’t mean that everybody else will continue to create when they are forced to give away their IP under your regime.

“So, the empirical evidence suggests that plenty of authors can actually make more money by freeing up their works.”
Uh no. The empirical evidences suggest that giving away some stuff for free is good marketing. However, you still have to pay the rent. Whether or not Nina could have made more money by going through a distributor has not been proven. If this is the type of evidence you are relying upon, I have nothing to fear for you or your ilk.

“Again, it is clear you do not know me. I have no interest in getting movies or songs for free. I pay for all of my music and movies happily.”
As do I. However, the culture you are knee deep in loves their free stuff – free software, free movies, free songs. It is easy for the 99 non-creative people to call for all creative works to be free. However, the 1 creative person who’s job is to be creative still needs to pay the rent. Nina allegedly made the first cameraless IMAX film. However, by her own admission, she could have never done it without donations from Kodak and CFI labs to make this possible. The fact that one artist can scratch out a living on donations does not establish that all artists can do the same.

Do you really want to go back to the 1500s and 1600s when artists needed well-to-do patrons in order to create their works? This is what will happen if you eliminate copyright laws. People with money will be able to pay for the best artists. Sure, some of that will leak out (either purposeless or not), but many artists will be forced to sell their works to the well-to-do or face doing something other than being an artist.

“When the intellectual property laws are used not to promote the progress, they are no longer constitutional.”
Patent and copyright laws always promote progress. This is such a basic concept that even the average person on the street can readily recognize. A patent or a copyright can easily be analogized as a reward. Do something special, and you get something for it. Some people save lives and don’t want any reward at all for it. However, there are many people that save lives (and are required to go through significant training and expense to do so) and want to be rewarded for it. The fact that some random guy performs CPR on a drowned girl and refuses any type of reward doesn’t mean that if you stop paying nurses and doctors, they won’t find new lines of work. I can come up with hundreds of easy to understand examples that illustrate the same points. People understand the concept of getting paid for doing things.

The last 100 years have been a time of unprecedented explosion of invention and art available to the masses– times when a strong copyright/patent system has been in place. The empirical evidence, as a whole (as opposed to isolated data points), points to a strong copyright/patent system playing an important part of this. Try refuting that empirical evidence.

“My rates are reasonable.”
My rate is awfully expensive (and I’m a bargain these days). Then again, you get what you pay for.

“No one’s talking about altruism at all.”
Then what do you call giving away something for nothing?

BTW – no comments about your communist leanings?

“Why would Steven King write a book if after he sold the first copy, the copy could be copied by somebody else and resold? This type of regime would place a premium on being the best copiers and not the best innovators.”

Just visiting, since you keep insisting that you believe in empirical evidence, rather than just theory, I find it odd that you would defend your position entirely with a hypothetical. Even worse, you do so with a hypothetical that is easily proven wrong with actual empirical evidence.

You quoted Boldrin & Levine, but it appears you didn’t actually read their work, because they actually have an example that proves you wrong. They looked at different *public domain* works such as the 9/11 Commmission Report that was published as a book. The gov’t gave a deal to one publisher to be the first to publish it, and even though others can and did copy it, the original publisher retained a huge part of the market, just by being first.

And that’s a case where the author doesn’t matter and gets no benefit either way.

In cases where there’s an actual author, the impact is even stronger. Top selling authors like Paulo Coehlo and Cory Doctorow have chosen — on purpose — to give their books away for free, and both found that doing so increased the number of physical books they sold. Filmmaker Nina Paley gave away her movie so that anyone could download it or show it without paying her, and found that she was able to get more attention and money because of it.

There is empirical evidence that people still want to support the authors of books they like, and will buy the “official” versions when they can (Paley’s movie can be obtained from a variety of different sources, but the one from her directly sells the best because buyer’s know they’re supporting the artist).

So, the empirical evidence suggests that plenty of authors can actually make more money by freeing up their works, and since you’re such a big fan of empirical evidence, and not theory, I assume you’ll admit to your mistake?

“I help innovators, ON A DAILY BASIS, for real.”

Yes, you help them by giving them a crutch (patent) due to a broken bone (business model). I teach them how to avoid having broken bones at all and how to run marathons. I think I’m adding more to society, but it’s a matter of degree, I guess. And, yes, I help them on a daily basis too. I’m not sure why you think otherwise. You don’t know me.

“. What you seem to care about is how you can get your movies and songs for free.”

Again, it is clear you do not know me. I have no interest in getting movies or songs for free. I pay for all of my music and movies happily. I’m not sure who you think I am, but your assumptions are sadly mistaken. I work with many artists and innovators and help them adopt smart business models, but I do not and have never supported the concept of file sharing content that is not authorized by the content creators.

You can review my writings on this topic if you wish, because I put my name on things and stand behind my writing. I can only take a guess as to why you are afraid to stand behind your words. Perhaps because you have so little basis for them?

“The basis for intellectual property is in the U.S. Constitution, and there is no way that the US will open water down their IP laws.”

Indeed. The basis for IP laws is the US Constitution, which clearly states “To promote the progress…” meaning that such laws are only valid inasmuch as they promote the progress. When the intellectual property laws are used not to promote the progress, they are no longer constitutional.

“Few people like theives, and it is all to easy to label you as theives, since that is what your are proposing.”

Indeed. I do not support stealing at all, and it is intellectually dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.

“My suggestion to Mark, David, and the rest of their clan is to go visit one of the invention conventions that occur throughout the country. Go talk to REAL inventors. Talk to the people who actually spend time/money inventing. As them how much time/money they’ve spent on their ideas. Ask them what they know about intellectal property law and patents. Ask them if they think that giving their ideas away for free is a good idea. I’m sure you’ll find the altruistic few that don’t mind giving their ideas away.”

Again, I work with innovators every day, helping them put in place smart business models. If you feel threatened by where the market is heading and want some help, feel free to contact me. My rates are reasonable.

As for your final line, it is incredibly intellectually dishonest for you to state that again. No one here is suggesting altruism is why things will continue. I already explained that to you above. For you to repeat that we expect people to give away things for free due to altruistic purposes is intellectually dishonest, because no one has suggested that at all. What we are saying is that (a) there is little to no evidence that such monopolies actually increase innovation (b) even without IP there are great business models from which innovators can and do make money.

No one’s talking about altruism at all. So why even bring it up other than that you don’t have a real argument?

“However, I’m sure you’ll find a great many that would not have spent the time/money/energy they did without any expectation of a potential payoff at the end.”

Again, this is intellectually dishonest. The whole point of what I do is to help those innovators get a bigger potential payoff at the end — by actually selling products in the market place.

Again, please feel free to contact me for hourly rates if you are unable to figure this out yourself. Of course, to do so, you might have to reveal who you are. In the meantime, I enjoyed this debate, but would suggest that in the future, you try to actually address the issues rather than think you can simply misdirect and bully others. It doesn’t lead to much respect for your position. It just convinces me that you haven’t thought through your arguments carefully.

And with that, I’m going back to my business trip.

Your statement is an example of your poor reading comprehension. You may have been talking about the difference between science and invention with Gene, but an exploration of that distinction has been absent from my arguments — which have been directed to other topics.

“tell me why the act of isolation of those genes somehow warrants a 20 year monopoly over those genes”
Well … genetics isn’t my “thang” but if the isolation of these genes have a utility (i.e., the isolated gene is useful), then we reward patents to people who find any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.

To Gene’s comments, a claim to an **ISOLATED** DNA cannot be infringed by a human nor is it naturally occurring. Ownership of a patent gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing into the United States the invention claimed in the patent. A human body does not make an isolated gene sequence. A human body does not use an isolated gene sequence. A human body also does not offer for sale, sell, or import into the US an isolated gene sequence. Pray tell, explain to me how patent ownership in an isolated gene sequence could be used to “own” somebody? Inferring that a person is somehow “owned” by asking the question “Who owns you?” because of gene patents is irresponsible. It is unwarranted fear mongering.

FYI — in 4 years, 7 months, the patent you cited will expire, and whatever that was “owned” by anybody will expire along with it.

The problem with your side is that anytime you find a poster child patent that resonates with some people, by the time you find it, crank up your fear mongering machine, and get this patent into the general public’s concious, the patent will be close to expiring. At which point, our side will say — “look, that patent expired — show’s over, everybody can go home and sleep peacefully.”

I’ve been called a lot worse than a twit here, and elsewhere, and I now let it slide off me. I stick to the issues, focus on empirical evidence (real studies, not anecdotal evidence), and logical argument. I’m sorry someone called you a twit, I never did, and I don’t agree that you are. I have never lied, I mis-spoke slightly about the Swiss experience, but not much, and the record is corrected on that now. You need to read the Myriad patents: US Patent 5,747,282, the contested claims include the following:

1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.

2. The isolated DNA of claim 1, wherein said DNA has the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1.

5. An isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 1.

6. An isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 2.

and I, patent attorney Luigi Palombi, author of Gene Cartels, the ACLU, the Public Patent Foundation, and others, have always argued that the mere isolation of naturally-occurring genes and mutations is not an inventive step warranting patent. So don;t say I’ve lied, mischaracterized the patent, or impugn my character. We have made legitimate arguments, and backed up those claims. I have given you multiple analogies, and my book and my blog have all those arguments. If you wish to address those arguments, and tell me why the act of isolation of those genes somehow warrants a 20 year monopoly over those genes, fine, but stop with your personal attacks. I haven’t sunk that low, and you really ought to try not to as well.

Anyway, I think you felt piled-upon, I have too in the past, and you lashed out. So let’s let it go at that, ok?

all my best,
David

p.s.: Just Visiting, your example of Leonardo above really just shows you don’t know the difference between science and invention. What principles or laws of nature did Leonardo da Vinci discover? Now Newton, he discovered laws of nature, and published them. That’s science.

http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~eroberts/courses/cs181/projects/2007-08/communism-computing-china/intelproperty.html

A couple snippets:
“In this thought framework, no programmer is compensated personally for their work: the entire society benefits by making source code available because everyone will collectively work on the software as well as collectively reap the benefits. Communist theory about software is similar to traditional open source arguments: that source code sharing can provide greater access my multiple people, and therefore the greatest minds can all work on it at once, thus producing higher quality software.”

“Thus in traditional communist theory, there is no justification for personal reward in public achievement. In addition, they also think communist theories argue against the other common justification for patents: they provide incentive for inventors to spend their time developing new technology. The two states patents as incentive is contrary to traditional communist thought as “the incentive offered is a monopoly which increases the private profits realized from the invention rather than the benefits to society in general.” Communism therefore argues against all patents, and because of this also argues against the patent protection of intellectual property, including software. Patents on algorithms, interfaces, and ideas are all incompatible with traditional communist theory.”

Here is an article from a communist website that is dripping with admiration for the free software movement:
http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr10/communism.html

It looks like I wouldn’t be the only one who think both Mike and David are “patent communists.”

I help innovators, ON A DAILY BASIS, for real. What you seem to care about is how you can get your movies and songs for free. Regardless, in the end, your side is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

The basis for intellectual property is in the U.S. Constitution, and there is no way that the US will open water down their IP laws. These are all nice little academic arguments, but in the end, they are moot. My side has won, is continuing to win, and will continue to win.

Few people like theives, and it is all to easy to label you as theives, since that is what your are proposing.

My suggestion to Mark, David, and the rest of their clan is to go visit one of the invention conventions that occur throughout the country. Go talk to REAL inventors. Talk to the people who actually spend time/money inventing. As them how much time/money they’ve spent on their ideas. Ask them what they know about intellectal property law and patents. Ask them if they think that giving their ideas away for free is a good idea.

I’m sure you’ll find the altruistic few that don’t mind giving their ideas away. However, I’m sure you’ll find a great many that would not have spent the time/money/energy they did without any expectation of a potential payoff at the end.