LIFTING RESTRICTIONS BETWEEN SCIENTISTS

 

COPYRIGHT

 

Copyright is the exclusive right given to the creator of a creative work to reproduce the work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States. Some jurisdictions require "fixing" copyrighted works in a tangible form. It is often shared among multiple authors, each of whom holds a set of rights to use or license the work, and who are commonly referred to as rights holders. These rights frequently include reproduction, control over derivative works, distribution, public performance, and moral rights such as attribution.

Copyrights can be granted by public law and are in that case considered "territorial rights". This means that copyrights granted by the law of a certain state, do not extend beyond the territory of that specific jurisdiction. Copyrights of this type vary by country; many countries, and sometimes a large group of countries, have made agreements with other countries on procedures applicable when works "cross" national borders or national rights are inconsistent.

Typically, the public law duration of a copyright expires 50 to 100 years after the creator dies, depending on the jurisdiction. Some countries require certain copyright formalities to establishing copyright, others recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration.

 

With the level of danger we achieved in the current situation, are we allowed to lifted such restrictions, about data, strategy and strain of virus (under certain limitation).

I admit.

 Anger in Germany at report Trump seeking exclusive vaccine deal

 

44 minutes ago, MaximT said:

With the level of danger we achieved in the current situation, are we allowed to lifted such restrictions, about data, strategy and strain of virus (under certain limitation).

You can't copyright data, a strategy or a virus genome.

24 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

I admit.

 Anger in Germany at report Trump seeking exclusive vaccine deal

And you can't copyright a vaccine.

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You can't copyright data, a strategy or a virus genome.

And you can't copyright a vaccine.

Nice if it was that unambiguous.

From https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/testing/genepatents

Quote

....On June 13, 2013, in the case of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a "product of nature."

....The Supreme Court's ruling did allow that DNA manipulated in a lab is eligible to be patented because DNA sequences altered by humans are not found in nature.

It's likely a vaccine or a weakened virus would contain some patentable DNA according to the above.

Interesting question whether a COVID-19 virus mutation found in an infected human is classed as natural or a DNA sequence altered by a human and not found in nature.

Monsanto has informally stated it won't sue while less than 1% of a crop is copyright Monsanto weeds...
 

Quote

 

Monsanto has developed a reputation for zealously defending patents on its genetically altered crops, which include patented “Roundup Ready” soybeans, corn and cotton, genetically altered to tolerate treatments of its Roundup weedkiller.......

In its ruling Monday, the court noted that records indicate a large majority of conventional seed samples have become contaminated by Monsanto’s Roundup resistance trait.

 

Rich pickings for lawyers.

Some people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing...

28 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Interesting question whether a COVID-19 virus mutation found in an infected human is classed as natural or a DNA sequence altered by a human and not found in nature.

IIRC it requires to have a method attached to creating these sequences. Just isolating them from somwhere, including humans, is insufficient.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

And you can't copyright a vaccine.

Well you can patent them. Not of all them can be, as especially natural materials are generally not easy to patent (unless the manufacturing procedure can be). 

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

Nice if it was that unambiguous.

From https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/testing/genepatents

Completely unambiguous. Copyright and patents are different things. You can't patent a book and you can't copyright an invention. (Although, in some jurisdictions, software can be protected by both copyright and patents.)

 

More to the OP: I was wondering what restrictions scientist would face with respect to copyright..? After all studies are published. The only concern is whether folks have to pay to read them, which is a whole different discussion (but quite a few journals seem to put COVID-19 related articles into open access).

And the Chinese made the genome available as soon as they had sequenced it.

 

If anything folks were unusually cooperative during this outbreak.