> However, in this case (and in every case that I know of involving Monsanto) they've simply patented something they discovered, not something they invented.
The first major biotech "invention" was Humulin. Basically putting the human gene for insulin in bacteria to produce human insulin. Humulin launched the biotech industry. You should consider how your logic applies to that case. While I find your reasoning appealing, I don't think it is sound or applicable.
> You should consider how your logic applies to that case. While I find your reasoning appealing, I don't think it is sound or applicable.
This is problematic - you can imagine a NPE taking this to heart and simply producing proteins for all the known human genes and contesting any future treatments based on protein therapy.
Perhaps recombinant gene therapies should be regulated in the same way as pharmaceuticals where the first company to market would be protected for some time from competitors who would sell the same compound. In this system, using an unrelated peptide that had the same effect as insulin would be permissible but simply re-cloning human insulin would not be.
As a side-note, I think there was a technically-innovative approach [1] used to make humulin which involved two non-naturally occuring nucleotide sequences. I suppose these might be patentable for glabrifons'...
But in that case, they don't sell the bacteria, do they? (that would be foolish)
They sell the insulin it produces. You cannot take the insulin and make more insulin with it, so no-one can take the product they bought and "let nature take its course" and end up with more.
However, if someone were to use the same process they used for gene insertion (which is more likely to be an invention than a gene they simply discovered), they may have grounds to sue.
However, if someone were to use the same process they used for gene insertion (which is more likely to be an invention than a gene they simply discovered), they may have grounds to sue.
If I had to pick Genentech protecting their drug via a patent on an E.coli bacteria containing human insulin gene vs. the method to move the gene I'd take the former for sure. The method was much more broadly useful.
This is the road a strident anti-patent stance leads you down. You end up arguing that capital intensive R&D companies should vertically integrate and get into the business of selling end-user products, because that's the way to protect R&D investment without patent protection. But is that a good solution (ideology aside)? Doesn't that hinder useful things like specialization and division of labor? Isn't it better for Monsanto to focus on genetics and farmers to focus on farming?
If you make a special configuration of life, you should be ready and willing to deal with the consequence of selling that life. E.g. if I buy a purebred puppy from a breeder, does that breeder get to tell me not to breed my dog? No, they don't. And lo and behold, as if by magic, there is still financial incentive in selling specially bred dogs!
Monsanto is just being greedy here, and the net impact on their profits will be minimal even if they lose. There will always be a market for them to sell engineered life "factory fresh" even if people use secondary generation of seed.
The first major biotech "invention" was Humulin. Basically putting the human gene for insulin in bacteria to produce human insulin. Humulin launched the biotech industry. You should consider how your logic applies to that case. While I find your reasoning appealing, I don't think it is sound or applicable.