Slashdot Mirror
US Court Sides With Gene Patents
ananyo writes "Gene patents have been upheld in a landmark case over two genes associated with hereditary forms of breast and ovarian cancer. The lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, a diagnostic company based in Salt Lake City, Utah, that holds patents on the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, has bounced from court to court since 2010. In a 2-1 decision today, a federal appeals court reaffirmed their latest decision that genes represent patent-eligible matter. As noted before on Slashdot, the case will have major implications for cancer researchers, patients and drug makers."
While Judge Koh suggests Apple is “smoking crack” in another case, I'm going to suggest that judges are smoking crack here.
What other natural phenomenon can I patent? The shape of a quartz crystal perhaps?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
But according to the latest judges, the patents Myriad holds do not reiterate these laws. In the courtâ(TM)s decision, Judge Alan Lourie writes: âoeEach of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter."
Like hell they are. This judge needs to go back to HS biology.
--
BMO
The beauty of law is its ambiguity.
Certainly, for those who make six figures exploiting such ambiguity it is.
For people who actually just want to know whether a given action makes the liable or not, the ambiguity of the law is contrary to its fundamental purpose.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
On the other hand if you have medical issues related to patented genes perhaps you could sue the patent holder.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Likewise, if THEIR genes are causing a woman's breast cancer, they will naturally be held responsible, right? After all, if MY dog bites someone, I get the medical bills.
Scientists very rarely do any of the amazingly awesome stuff they do because they want tons of money. The people who fund the scientists only do so because they expect to make tons of money off of them. This is a very important distinction. Just like politics, if we remove money from the equation, a lot of good can happen. Medical and scientific progress shouldn't depend on the ability to turn a profit.
Ambiguity helps to prevent exploits.
Or allow them. It cuts both ways.
And that's assuming it's even possible to craft an unambiguous law. Human language isn't particularly well suited to that task.
And in that case, the ambiguity is an unfortunate side-effect, not "the beauty of the law"
An ambiguous law almost inevitably leads to selective enforcement. This is a bad thing, because it puts power in the hands of the interpreters of the law, rather than the law itself.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
just remember: science flies you to mars. religion flies you into buildings.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
> The product of PCR generally does not occur in that form in nature. It is a manufactured nucleic acid
Perhaps you don't understand PCR yourself. PCR makes identical copies of the molecule. It's the way PCR works. It's the same molecule as found in nature, just run through a metaphorical photocopier enough times to make it easier to handle.
Your logic is like saying saying you can patent a mountain because you took a picture of it.
--
BMO