Submission + - Truly Open Source Biology? (plosjournals.org)
An anonymous reader writes: Recent posts in Slashdot have dealt with "open source" synthetic biology http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/3 0/1927205
In an article in PloS Biology, James Boyle and Arti Rai claim that synthetic biology may be the "perfect storm" for intellectual property — allowing the courts to combine the dumb things they have done with both software patents and gene patents, and apply them to an immature technological field — like patenting Boolean algebra right at the birth of computer science. One response? An attempt to build a truly open source synthetic biology — standard biological parts, perhaps even covered by a GPL style license. Viral licensing indeed.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request= get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050058
(Interestingly, they argue a public domain approach might work better.)
In an article in PloS Biology, James Boyle and Arti Rai claim that synthetic biology may be the "perfect storm" for intellectual property — allowing the courts to combine the dumb things they have done with both software patents and gene patents, and apply them to an immature technological field — like patenting Boolean algebra right at the birth of computer science. One response? An attempt to build a truly open source synthetic biology — standard biological parts, perhaps even covered by a GPL style license. Viral licensing indeed.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request
(Interestingly, they argue a public domain approach might work better.)