Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Court Sides With Gene Patents

Posted by timothy on from the much-prefer-gene-siskells-to-gene-patents dept.

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."

5 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Smoking Crack by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Smoking Crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It must be the same crack that causes an opposite ruling of the one the Supreme Court ruled on a few months ago.

      But the real problem here is that a judicial system designed to interpret criminal law is not designed to interpret scientific merit or results. The entire premise of the system is faulty. Patents eligibility should not be decided by criminal courts, nor should they be processed as if the only merit for approval is that the legal forms and fees are paid.

  2. Wait, what? by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  3. Re:The sky is falling...not. by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:Big Pharma wins again by Grave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.