Patents On Genes: Round Two

dstates writes "An industry has grown up around patents guaranteeing exclusive access to testing of mutations in specific genes, but recently the Supreme Court rejected a biotechnology patent saying laws of nature cannot be patented, and threw the issue of patents on genes back to the lower courts. The Court of Appeals is now preparing to hear arguments on whether genes can be patented. The results will have major implications. On the one hand, restricting access to whole regions of the human genome will stifle scientific progress. On the other, companies like Myriad Genetics and Optimal Medicine use the patents to protect years of work invested in research, but this also means preventing other companies from offering diagnostics based on competing faster and lower cost technologies to analyze mutations in these genes."

Comments

Prior art?

[Nidi62]

Unless a company/researcher can claim and show evidence that they have created a new mutation of a gene, wouldn't pretty much the entire history of the human species and human evolution be considered prior art for that gene?

Re:Prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

It only takes a single reasonably reputable court (a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for example) to say yes and another to say no for the issue to require escalation to the Supreme court. Even if it was 10 yes and only 1 no, that still means there is ambiguity about the national stance on the issue and the SCOTUS should hear the case. It doesn't mean that all the judges in all the cases were saying the wrong thing until SCOTUS, it just means one judge said the wrong thing early enough in the issue's existence or with enough weight to introduce ambiguity on the legality nationwide.

There is a solution

[davidannis]

The solution is not to allow my genes to be patented but to have the government fund basic research on what genes do and let the private sector slug it out. Many companies can then produce tests that are cheaper, faster, and better. That way they would compete on price and quality, not on being first to gain a monopoly position. We have lots of public infrastructure, like roads, that companies like UPS and FedEx share. It keeps costs low. Imagine if UPS could get exclusive access to Interstate 80 while FedEx got I-75. Not an efficient system if your goal is serving society even it FedEx and UPS funded their individual highways.

No

[paiute]

Genes themselves should not be patentable. Make a different sequence synthetically, yes. Come up with a new way to sequence it, yes. Find a way to fix it if it's defective, yes. But the gene itself? No.

Not an Invention

[fmachado]

Why would we accept a monopoly on some natural thing just because someone spent some money on something?

Patents should never be allowed to genes, even if someone spent the whole stock of money of the plant.

Just to begin, it's not an INVENTION, so a patent should not be allowed at all.

I'm not against all patents, but patents on genes, software and business process are ridiculous. This demonstration of greed without limits should not be rewarded.

Flavio

Re:So just patent the test...

[__aagbwg300]

As I understand the case, the issue is whether genetic material is patentable at all. This is generally referred to as patentable utility or just utility for short. Questions of utility deal exclusivly with whether they fall under the statute. The questions are usually answered with a simple "yes, it is" (e.g. For an improved potato peeler) or "no," (e.g. F=ma) so no prior art would be necessary.

Re:So just patent the test...

[king neckbeard]

Too bad, it's not an invention, so you can't get a patent on it.