Utah Wants To Own State Microbes; May Demand Royalty On Any Products Developed

from the all-your-bugs-are-belong-to-us dept

This one’s from about a month ago, but I can’t find any info on whether or not the bill has gone anywhere. It’s yet another crazy proposal coming out of the Utah legislature, which seems to really lead the field in crazy proposals out of state legislatures. This one, sent in by Kevin Cummings, is about a proposed bill that would effectively grant Utah control over the state’s organisms/microbes. Seriously. Apparently the legislator wants to create a patent-like regime that would force anyone to pay up if they made anything with Utah organisms:

“If they’re using Utah organisms, we think Utah as a state should benefit from royalties. Like a patent,” said Sen. Lyle Hillyard

Of course, that’s a total bastardization of what a patent is for. A patent is supposed to be a limited incentive to invent in an effort to promote the progress — and, in exchange for the patent, you’re supposed to teach the invention. None of those other aspects apply to what Hillyard is discussing here. There is no limit. There is no incentive (if anything, it takes away incentives from doing stuff in Utah). It doesn’t promote progress (just giving money to the state) and there is no teaching or disclosure involved. In other words, it has all of the worst parts of a patent and nothing good at all. It’s basically a blatant money-grab, highlighting the concept of ownership culture, where people try to claim ownership of things that cannot and should not be own-able.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Utah Wants To Own State Microbes; May Demand Royalty On Any Products Developed”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
53 Comments
Dave (profile) says:

Re: Re: Even Bigger Sigh

I know your are just trolling, so I probably shouldn’t even reply, but I know for a fact that my church has not advocated patenting microbes. Or warrantless searches. Or global warming denial.

You may have legitimate critisms of my religion, but I doubt any of them have a place in this discussion. Don’t group it with these neo-conservative nutjobs.

Dave (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Even Bigger Sigh

I really wasn’t offended. You have to have kind of a thick skin as a Mormon on the internet. There’s a whole lot of vitriol out there directed at us. I only replied because I wanted to make clear my church is not my government. Our legislators might make decisions based on their beliefs, and they might consider themselves Mormon, but sometimes I would swear that they actually belong to some other church that shares nothing with mine except a name.

Thanks for the apology, though! Are we friends now? 🙂

andrew johnson (profile) says:

and how is this news?

One of my first introductions to the process of government came in the form of Boys State. Although I never did quite understand the goal of this program, it did, in my opinion, provide a very realistic portrayal of government at large. Basically the whole program consisted of granting a large group of adolescents free democratic reign over anything they could think of. Inevitably the week started off with countless proclamations of ownership over the atmosphere, the universe, and everything and everything else.. before promptly settling at a point just above absolute chaos.

A. Lincoln says:

Slavery again?

So, Utah will be the first to engage in Microbe slavery. They OWN those lifeforms!

What’s the precedent for this? Do they own all of the living organism in the state? And if they do, are they responsible for the actions of those living organisms?

Do they own all of the stray cats? Do they own all of the gophers?

Where does there “ownership” end?

Potato JOE says:

well if the world needs a stupid pill

developed from utah well i guess they should get a piece a da action on it after all being stupid is what that state is all about

yup now no one will want to do a damn bit there.
GOOD JOB GOVT screw tech out buy claiming you own every molecule right down to the center of the earth YES think of the profits oh wait what if no one else does this…..

Richard (profile) says:

Actually they might have a point but they're going the wrong way

At the moment, thanks to the gradual “stretching” of patent law, company X can come and dig up some microbes in Utah, patent them and then charge people in Utah for using them.

That itself is wrong, discoveries in nature should not be patentable.

Utah may think they have found a smart way to hit back and take some of the profit themselves – but they would be better off backing those who are trying to rein in patent law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Won't pass

Can’t patent naturally occurring organisms.

Moreover, it can’t be copyrighted either, being as how it’s naturally occurring.

They could patent novel ways to *use* their organisms, and copyright analysis and collected data about the organisms.

The stupidity of politicians never ceases to amaze me. Of course, it comes from an electorate that follows the same trajectory.

I’m *so* glad I moved out of that country before the fall. Hopefully, I can disengage my financials sufficiently before the collapse and the desperate grab for cash that will immediately precede it.

Reed (profile) says:

Probable reason for this

Utah is the biggest manufacturer of supplements and vitamins in the United States. This huge and unregulated market is motivating their legislature with money signs in their eyes. They want a piece of the pie so to speak.

Of course the products are pure crap, wasting resources to make money from suckers who believe a pill or a drink is the key to health. With the pendulum continuously swinging towards buyer beware nowadays it makes you wonder if it will ever swing back again.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I presume this means that if a vein of gold is discovered to underlie you home you would be perfectly satisfied to allow its removal and explotation by others without any benefits flowing to you and your family.

Are you really trying to compare excavation of private property with people doing something with a microbe?

I just want to confirm that you really want to make perhaps the most ridiculous argument you’ve ever made on this site — and you’ve made a lot — before destroying it as being idiotic.

I’ll give you a chance to admit that you didn’t really want to go down this path. I suggest you take it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/sbillamd/sb0051s01.pdf

It helps to first read a bill before waxing poetic.

The scope of the bill pertains only to lands owned by the “public” at large (in this case by Utah and its political subdivisions, and not federal land which encompasses most of the state (and which, by the way, Utah is apparently considering a showdown with the federal government by exploring the possiblity of the state using its emminent domain power to condemn federal land), and such “public” land is no different in kind than “private” land.

I express no opinion on the wisdom of such a law, nor do I express any opinion on any infirmities it may have vis a vis possibly relevant federal law. All I point out is that the concept is not something that can be dimissed by the mere waive of a hand and trying to relate basic law associated with real property to patent law.

If anything is ridiculous, it is your seeming reluctance to entertain for even a moment the notion that more may be in play than what your article might otherwise suggest.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

It helps to first read a bill before waxing poetic.

I did, in fact, read it. Why you assume otherwise is beyond me, but is typical of you.

The scope of the bill pertains only to lands owned by the “public” at large (in this case by Utah and its political subdivisions, and not federal land which encompasses most of the state

And that somehow makes it okay?

I express no opinion on the wisdom of such a law

Yes, you did, actually. Don’t try to back down now.

All I point out is that the concept is not something that can be dimissed by the mere waive of a hand and trying to relate basic law associated with real property to patent law.

Sure it is. I recognize that you have made it clear that you think that any law must be a good law and we should shut up about it, but I’m going to express my opinion, and not hide behind some lame false statement like you do.

This is a dumb law. It makes no sense and I have no problem explaining why. Comparing it to mining for gold is, frankly, ridiculous.

If anything is ridiculous, it is your seeming reluctance to entertain for even a moment the notion that more may be in play than what your article might otherwise suggest.

Not at all. First, I am always willing to entertain that there’s more in play. That’s why we leave the comments open so people can add more information and we can have a discussion. But you had no interest in having a discussion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I initially made a simple observation and asked aloud if the substitution of words might influence comments. This seems to me to be a legitimate contribution in that it might give some pause for reflection.

I noted the article did not make the distinction that the pending bill was limited to public land retained by the state of Utah. Moreover, the subject of the bill has absolutely nothing to do with patents.

Contrary to what you assert, I expressed no opinion on the wisdom and so stated. I likewise expressed no opinion on whether or not this type of law might run into problems with federal law. Thus, I am at a loss trying to figure out from what I should be backing down.

A more pertinent point that I believed you might raise is that unlike oil, gold, and other natural resources, organic matter such a plants, microbes, etc. are self-replicating, and that this might be a distinction worth exploring.

bikey (profile) says:

microbes and ownership

This has nothing to do with crazy Utah, or mormondom. This is what many genetic-resource rich nations have been fighting for to keep from being ripped off by big pharma, monsanto, etc. You might not like the idea that a US state would do it, but it’s not a cocamamie idea. Article 3 of the1992 Biodiversity Convention provides:
Article 3. Principle

States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...