Comments on: Monopolists of the Genetic Code?

By: Items of Interest 7-30-10 « @H+ :: Anarcho-Transhumanism

Items of Interest 7-30-10 « @H+ :: Anarcho-Transhumanism — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:50:49 +0000

[...] Monopolists of the genetic code [...]

By: Cathal

Cathal — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 05:35:22 +0000

Speaking as a Geneticist and soon-to-be would-be synthetic biologist, I share your worries. It is fortunate that the “Source Code” of life will have to be a part of distributed technologies, but if the patent problem keeps things five years behind such broad distribution simply because of the cost or because it’s kept between corporations only for a while, then the damage is done.

Here’s hoping for an open synth-bio future!

By: P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » Craig Venter synthetic life fallout: P2P pharmaceuticals and fuels?

Mon, 31 May 2010 13:40:23 +0000

[...] Boyle, in an editorial for the Financial Times, also warns for the dangers of monopoly over the code of [...]

By: Daen de Leon

Daen de Leon — Sat, 29 May 2010 20:42:00 +0000

“Still Apple doesn’t yet have a monopoly in any area with network effects as strong as those in the desktop OS world.”

That’s true – it’s all too easy to believe that Apple is on the verge of girdling the globe with iPhones and iPads, which it isn’t. I agree, the objective truth is that Microsoft is still dominant on the desktop.

By: James Boyle

James Boyle — Sat, 29 May 2010 06:24:27 +0000

I take your point. Gates’ philanthropic spending is incredibly laudable. And Apple’s closed platforms are indeed worrisome. Still Apple doesn’t yet have a monopoly in any area with network effects as strong as those in the desktop OS world. And — remember — this is an op ed. Saying “the danger is he is Steve Jobs” would simply not have conveyed what I was trying to say, at least to 90% of the audience.

By: Jim Law

Jim Law — Sat, 29 May 2010 01:57:34 +0000

Overbroad patents on foundational technologies certainly are a danger to technology advancement — in the US. We shouldn’t confuse the world of US patents with the world of science, which is truly world-wide. Although Venter’s group may be the first they will soon be followed by others with, or without, Venter’s permission. I also think the analogy to computer operating systems is flawed. For an OS, such as Microsoft Windows, the distributed product is a binary executable rather than the source code. The genetic code is the source code. Could Microsoft have maintained it’s OS monopoly anywhere near as well if it had been necessary to distribute the source code to every customer?

By: Daen de Leon

Daen de Leon — Fri, 28 May 2010 19:15:28 +0000

“The danger isn’t that Craig Venter has become God, it is that he might become Bill Gates.”

I find it a little incongruous that you’ve chosen to single Gates out here, who is, let’s face it, a man responsible for co-founding a foundation which currently accounts for 17% of the annual global spending on the attempt to eradicate polio, with similar amounts going towards HIV, TB and leishmaniasis research.

I would contend that, these days, Steve Jobs would be a better model for the role of monopolist in your story.