Andreassen Tom
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, NTNU Dragvoll, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491, Trondheim, Norway.
Med Health Care Philos. 2015 Nov;18(4):463-73. doi: 10.1007/s11019-015-9647-4.
Patents on biotech products have a scope that goes well beyond what is covered by the most widely applied ethical justifications of intellectual property. Neither natural rights theory from Locke, nor public interest theory of IP rights justifies the wide scope of legal protection. The article takes human genes as an example, focusing on the component that is not invented but persists as unaltered gene information even in the synthetically produced complementary DNA, the cDNA. It is argued that patent on cDNA holds this information captive, or illegitimately appropriates it in limiting other researchers and inventors' opportunity to explore new functions and uses based on this non-invented information. A tighter connection between legal IP protection and the use description stated in the patent claim is suggested. By binding protection to the product's foreseeable functions and use, instead of the product itself and all future uses of it, legitimacy of biotech product patents is restored.
生物技术产品的专利范围远远超出了知识产权最广泛应用的伦理正当理由所涵盖的范围。洛克的自然权利理论和知识产权的公共利益理论都无法为如此广泛的法律保护范围提供正当理由。本文以人类基因为例，重点关注即使在合成产生的互补DNA（cDNA）中未被发明但作为未改变的基因信息持续存在的成分。有人认为，cDNA专利将这些信息据为己有，或者在限制其他研究人员和发明家基于这种未被发明的信息探索新功能和用途的机会方面进行了非法占有。有人建议在法律上的知识产权保护与专利权利要求中所述的用途描述之间建立更紧密的联系。通过将保护与产品可预见的功能和用途联系起来，而不是与产品本身及其所有未来用途联系起来，生物技术产品专利的合法性得以恢复。
