Are gene patents genetic slavery?

Day 14: 14/05/2012

"I'm not going to pretend I support genetic patents. I think they're at best spurious claims where at times the efforts expended are not in line with the benefits received. How precisely does a company own something they just happened to find?

According to wikipedia a patent is defined as 'a form of intellectual property. It consists of a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of an invention.

The procedure for granting patents, the requirements placed on the patentee, and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must meet the relevant patentability requirements such as novelty and non-obviousness. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission.' With a gene patent, what is it that the gene companies have invented? You can't patent a star, you can't patent a rock and you definately shouldn't be able to patent a part of a person.

This gets to my next issue, if twenty percent of every person is owned by various companies, how soon will it be before an enterprising company wants to 'protect' their investment by 'controlling' their property? Is being owned by one entity (person) any different than being owned by many (companies)? Do you have an obligation that splits you so many different ways as there are owners?

I have no issue with making money from actually producing something. Find the genes, produce a test, cure a disease, make all of the money that the market will bear; but actually produce something first."

The above cartoon is from (Narbi.com)