Hopefully many people have heard about the open-source (OS) ideology by now (think Firefox, Linux). It's very much the antithesis to IP (Intellectual Property), in which an individual or company patents a product and no one else is able to use it (think Microsoft or Monsanto). In the open-source environment, knowledge is free to all, and people build off the work of others - it's a balance between sharing and competition. Advocates and nasayers of open-source typically make their arguments over two points - that it (creates or reduces) innovation and that it (facilitates or hinders) business.

It's fair to say that the open-source ideology has been gaining a lot of popularity in recent years. It has become embraced strongly by academia and is making its way into government. Individuals have been embracing this kind of structure for years, and continue to grow.

So that was a little background. I'd just like to post articles in here, as I come across them, both for and against OS.. just to bring some attention to the subject. I think the direction that we go with this will have substantial effects on our future and I think it's going to become a very heated battle in the near-term. Hopefully I'm not the only one that finds this very exciting...

So anyway, here is an interesting article about the Open-Source Biology movement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open-Source Biology Evolves
By David Cohn

02:00 AM Jan. 17, 2005 PT

To push research forward, scientists need to draw from the best data and innovations in their field. Much of the work, however, is patented, leaving many academic and nonprofit researchers hamstrung. But an Australian organization advocating an open-source approach to biology hopes to free up biological data without violating intellectual property rights.

The battle lies between biotech companies like multinational Monsanto, who can grant or deny the legal use of biological information, and independent organizations like The Biological Innovation for Open Society, or BIOS, and Science Commons. The indies want to give scientists free access to the latest methods in biotechnology through the web.

BIOS will soon launch an open-source platform that promises to free up rights to patented DNA sequences and the methods needed to manipulate biological material. Users must only follow BIOS' "rules of engagement," which are similar to those used by the open-source software community.

"There are technologies you need to innovate and then there are the innovations themselves," said Richard Jefferson1, founder and director of BIOS in Canberra, Australia. "But those can only happen when there is fair access to the technologies."

Just like open-source software, open-source biology users own the patents to their creations, but cannot hinder others from using the original shared information to develop similar products. Any improvements of the shared methods of BIOS, the Science Commons or other open-source communities must be made public, as well as any health hazards that are discovered.

BIOS has called on Brian Behlendorf2, CTO of ColabNet, to create the web tools the open-source community platform will run on. Those should be up in the coming weeks.

Nipping at its heels is the Science Commons. The outgrowth project of Creative Commons will have a hand in all areas of science, not just the life sciences like BIOS, and is getting ready to launch its open-source community in the next two to three weeks, said John Wilbanks, executive director of Science Commons.

Wilbanks sees Science Commons and other open-source communities as a "neutral ground" for people to decide how much control over a patent they want to maintain or control. "Say you are a holder of patents and you want to make them available, you should be able to do that without having to call a lawyer," said Wilbanks.

While free access to biological information will benefit those doing research, companies who have invested millions in patents, on the other hand, won't perform expensive groundbreaking research without a guarantee that their intellectual property rights would be upheld. "Patents attract investors, providing the resources necessary to bring the product to market," said Brigid Quinn, deputy director of public affairs with the U.S. patent office. "Patents are and have always been an important part of this country's economic fabric."

On the contrary, Jefferson believes patent restrictions have compromised billions of people who should be benefiting from new diagnostic tests or improved genetically modified crops and medicines.

For example, biologists in Kenya might be eager to create a genetically modified sweet potato that could allow farmers to use fewer chemical fertilizers. But if a company owns all or part of the gene sequence, DNA fragment or the mechanism in question, the scientists' hands are tied unless they can pay a licensing fee. The corporations that own such patents won't invest in research unless they know a market is waiting for the product.

"Perhaps professors in Kenya can start a company, perhaps they can make $300,000 a year, but that's just not on the charts for Monsanto," said Roger Brent of Berkeley's Molecular Sciences Institute.

Under an open-source contract between scientists, just like open-source software, developers would be free to use these methods to create new products. The products themselves would be proprietary, but the techniques and components used to make them would be open to all, meaning more bio-products, competition, smaller markets and faster improvements, Jefferson said.

If Jefferson and his fellow rebel scientists succeed, biotech companies stand to lose their monopoly on creating integrated biological systems. But he believes human health, safety and standards of living will all suffer under the present patent structure.

Some fear that making the latest methods of genetic modification public will provide terrorists with the know-how to concoct new bioweapons in the comfort of their own garage. "Biological knowledge can be used for good or ill and unfortunately it's easier to make a biological weapon than it is defenses," said David Seagrest, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who focuses on biology and terrorism. With free instructions on how to cook up new, improved toxins, open-source biology could pose a threat to homeland security.

Jefferson, however, distinguishes between having access to biotech components and the legal license to use them. The techniques for biohacking are already public -- they can be found in IP contracts -- it's just not legal to apply them. "The people who have malice are going to do it irrespective of whether or not it's legal," said Jefferson.

Brent and Drew Endy, assistant professor of biology at MIT, who first coined the phrase "open source biology" at Berkeley's MSI, echoed this distinction. "Right now anybody who wants can re-synthesize the SARS virus," explained Brent.

Brent, Endy and researcher Robert Carlson sounded a rallying cry for open-source biology at MSI in 1999. The idea was to give researchers and scientists free access to the information needed to invent new biotech products that could benefit their communities and keep the world safe.

Five years later the dream of open-source software is becoming a reality.

"This is just the kernel of open-source biology," Jefferson said.

Jefferson sees open-source biology as part of science's evolution, the next logical step for science after the open access movement, in which organizations like the Public Library of Science made scientific journals freely available to anyone on the internet. Previously, thousands of dollars were charged annually for subscriptions by journals like Nature and Science. Now people will be able to perform the same experiments found in these free online journals and become part of the peer review and research process themselves.

By broadening the base of people who could hack DNA, scientists like Brent, Endy and Jefferson believe the hacker culture values like elegant design, creativity and sharing beneficial works of engineering for all, will spread to biology. "I think those are virtues which the existing world of science and engineering could gain a lot from," Brent said.

http://wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66 ... _tophead_1

i really have no problem with IP. if a person is smart enough to create something that the masses want, why shouldnt he be able to make a profit off of it for either himself or his company.

if the product is bad enough, noone will care, but if its something people like and feel they need, more power to him/her

I had a beautifully well crafted thought out reply to this, and while I typed it the server logged me off and all was lost.

Open Source is "good".
Intellectual Property is only as good as the number of fresh, creative people you have working with it so that it doesn't implode, but is able to grow and expand be at the forefront of new innovations and markets.

When you restrict access, you restrict the number of great minds who can tinker and imagine and create and improve upon your intellect(ual property).

The examples in both the software and the hardware markets are all out there, and history has shown that only a few companies can rebound from shooting themselves in the foot by being selfish and not playing well with others.

Non-disclosure Agreements can be your friend.

c-

Some astounding examples of IP rights. It's seriously to the point of absurdity what companies are getting copyrighted and how this is limiting competition and innovation. It's ridiculously sad..


Tokyo court orders popular word processor off market over its 'Help' function

link


Yahoo! sues Xfire for patent infringement over its instant messenger service for games.

link


Microsoft has a patent on double-clicks. Amazon has a patent on one-click shopping.

Companies have begun securing hundreds, or even thousands, of patents each year in order to strong-arm others. And so many are things that have been common knowledge for years.. where are our standards? When did quality and merit disappear from the equation?

The EU has just recently taken some bold steps towards rectifying this problem. Once again the EU seems to worry about the public good while the US remains puppets to those with money.

It's going to be a sad state of affairs if this trend continues in the US. It absolutely amazes me that people aren't up in arms about this. Eh, I'm just rambling now and most people won't even bother with this, but hopefully I can open a few eyes. A slew of prominent people and organizations have been speaking out about this recently, I only hope it's not falling on deaf, apathetic ears..

What if the companies who spent time inventing these products don't want to have them made open source? Don't they have that right?

Of course they do. I have no idea what point you're making.

Doesn't such an action take away a company's right to do what they want with their creation?

No it doesn't, that's the whole point. Copyrighting is what allows companies to do what they want with their creation, and they'll still have that ability. Patenting, on the other hand, allows these companies to have control of what others do, especially with respect to alternatives based on their idea. In essence, patenting is what often stifles innovation and competition.

Here, read the full article, it explains it better: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/up ... 00924.html

Anyway, all of this has nothing to do with forcing anybody to switch to free or open-soure methodologies. That would go against the whole philosophy of "freedom".

so scott, are you for patents of any kind being bad, or just in the PC world?

I don't buy the whole intellectual property crap. If someone else is smart enough to make the same thing you can, why shouldn't they be able to?

You fuckers had better assume that all of my posts are copyrighted. Any unauthorized use of my posts without my expressed, written consent will result in heavy fines, jail time, and massive opening of my whoop-ass can!

you just quoted me

$.05 please

I believe that patents are critical to development of new technologies, processes, drug therapies, etc., that all affect our lives in positive ways. Why should a drug company spend $millions on research if their newest drug discovery can be manufactured and sold by another company that didn't discover it?

However, the IP system is seriously abused. Sticking with the pharmaceutical example... drug companies that are faced with the end of a patent's life for one of their "cash cow" drugs have been known to change the drug a little (sometimes just changing the color) and apply for a new patent. And often the federal government gives it to them! Sherring Plough recently lost its patent on Clariton. So in response, they developed and patented Clarinex, which is virtually identical to Clariton, except it lasts longer and because it's patented, costs a lot more. If you have allergies, and you're using Clarinex you are wasting your money and/or your insurers money, which translates into higher health care premiums and more profits to pharmaceutical companies.

It's retarded. The system needs to be re-evaluated.

In my line of work, I come across patents all of the time. I sell goods to mass merchants such as wmart and hdepot. Patents can be used to protect the little guy but more often than not, they are meaningless because once something is altered slightly in a chinese factory, it is not bound by the restrictions of the original patent. Furthermore, someone almost always has more money than the little guy so nothing is done to prevent the infringing product's production.
Really, who has more $$ than wmart?
That is all I can say*checks over shoulder*

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if some other company wants to also spend millions to research it, they should be able to. The first company would just have to be able to keep it a secret how they came up with it.