That's an argument against patents existing at all. It's not really relevant to a discussion of what counts as patentable, because such a discussion assumes that patents are a valid mechanism.
Patents aim to trade a temporary bad result (monopoly) for a permanent good result (incentives to invent stuff).
Discussing exactly how bad the temporary bad result is informs discussion of when that trade-off is worthwhile. And this is true whether or not your conclusion is that patents are never OK or only sometimes OK.
When discussing whether X should be patented, it is appropriate to discuss the trade-offs specific to X.
It is a poor time to discuss trade-off generic to all patents. Focusing on them shifts the discussion away from the issue at hand, and toward a political stance that people have already heard.
avar's post does the latter.
Just like in a topic about whether to vote for a specific tax levy, it's inappropriate to talk about whether property taxes as a whole should be abolished.
>Just like in a topic about whether to vote for a specific tax levy, it's inappropriate to talk about whether property taxes as a whole should be abolished.
Making the argument that a given problem is recurrent is very constructive: consideration of the generic problem can provide arguments for prioritizing your problem as it relates to X. This is especially true when present instances of a problem affect future probability of the same problem occurring.
This is notably the case in law where jurisprudence makes laws progressively more difficult to repeal.
>That's not true for most of these patents, they're patenting isolated organisms, compounds or genes. I.e. the end result, not the process.
Organisms and genes are machines. There's nothing new about patenting specific machines.
Could they really get a patent on "bacteria that secretes X" that would stop you from doing it in a completely different manner?
But if you insert the same gene into the same bacteria using different equipment, that's no better than making the same patented gear with a different manufacturing method.
There's nothing stopping you from doing that, even with a patent in place, so long as your mechanism for secreting X (such as using a different base organism) is different.
To give an analogy, if somebody invented and patented the reciprocating piston engine, and then somebody else came along and invented a rotary engine, such as the wankel engine, the inventor of the former wouldn't have a claim against the latter because, while the result is the same (a drive shaft gets turned), the mechanism is different. Sure, it's possible that the inventor of the former could threaten the inventor of the former, as many patent trolls do, but legally they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Now, if the gene itself is the critical part of the 'invention', and not the organism, then taking that same gene and inserting it into a different organism still leaves you open to patent infringement. But that assumes the gene itself has been engineered, as opposed to having been found in an existing organism.
