Supreme Court to rule on patentability of human genes

[menotu]

By Timothy B. Lee - Nov 30, 2012 - arstechnica

Lower court ruled that genes can be patented once isolated from the body.

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will consider a legal challenge to a patent on a breast cancer gene held by the firm Myriad Genetics. The case could have broad implications for the future of medical diagnostic techniques.

In March, the Supreme Court ordered an appeals court to reconsider a 2011 decision holding that genetic material could be patented once it has been "isolated" from the human body. At the time, the Supreme Court had just rejected patents on medical diagnostic techniques, and the high court wanted the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to re-consider its previous ruling in light of this new precedent.
In August, the Federal Circuit, which is responsible for hearing all patent law appeals, decided to stick with its previous ruling. It once again concluded that DNA sequences could be patented once they had been isolated from the human body. Now the Supreme Court will have a chance to check the Federal Circuit's work.

The underlying lawsuit in the case was brought by a group of medical professionals and patients who argue that their research and health is adversely affected by Myriad's patents. The courts have held that natural phenomena are not eligible for patent protection, and the plaintiffs argue that patenting a naturally-occurring genetic sequence amounts to claiming a fact of nature. But Myriad disputes that, arguing that the complex process for extracting the genetic material effectively creates a new, artificially created, molecule that is eligible for patent protection.

http://ars.to/UxaaGn

[Just17]

But Myriad disputes that, arguing that the complex process for extracting the genetic material effectively creates a new, artificially created, molecule that is eligible for patent protection.

So let them patent the extraction process ...... 

[Crow]

I want to be paid for storing their genetic material all this time 

[ppiklapp]

Let them have mine, patent them all they want.  I doubt anyone wants mine, as screwy as I am.  The only thing I wonder about my genes is when the bear snuck into my pool.

[horusfalcon]

Filthy, thieving, money-grubbing bustards!  I agree that, if genes are patentable, then those who provide the sources for the genetic materials used must be fairly compensated (and I'm talking substantial royalties here, too!)

This ruling must not be allowed to stand - it is tantamount to patenting Hydrogen.  (Now I've done it!  Some other company will try that next...)

Later On,
D

[ppiklapp]

After re-reading what was posted, I have to agree that any genetic sequence should not be patentable.  They are starting with non-human ones, but the next step would be to try for human ones or altering human ones to fit their ideals.  The argument is over a cancer genetics after they have been extracted from the human.

[jimwilk]

What will they patent next? If Apple can patent a rectangle with rounded corners, then maybe some bright spark will latch on to patenting a mixture of gases including Nitrogen and Oxygen, call it Air and charge us all to breath it. Next step, patent rainfall.

Jim

[muungwana]

with their argument,if it takes complex processes that cost billions of dollars to find out that 2+3=5, then 2+3=5 should be patentable.

People go crazy when they see piles of cash infront of them,judges are people too so the case is not as clear as it should be.

[jimwilk]

with their argument,if it takes complex processes that cost billions of dollars to find out that 2+3=5, then 2+3=5 should be patentable.

People go crazy when they see piles of cash infront of them,judges are people too so the case is not as clear as it should be.

Why don't I patent the multiplication tables? That would bring me a return on the use of calculators, and spreadsheets. Even the banks would have to pay me money - that would make a change.

Jim

[horusfalcon]

Here's a novel concept:  do completely away with patent protection.  Let me explain before you gasp in horror:

Patent protection's original intent was to protect the inventor from those with possibly greater financial resources who would capitalize on the invention without fair compensation to the inventor.

Nowadays, since the process of patenting is so cumbersome, time- and money- intensive, the big players are the only ones who really bother with patents, so they now wind up protecting big corporate interests more than those of a small inventor working independently.  This turns the patent model on its head, effectively, so maybe it's time to move beyond that into an era where information is shared more openly and with less focus on monetizing human knowledge and more on contributing to and increasing that knowledge.

Just my two shekels worth.  Think of what would have happened had Linux been patented, copy-protected, copyrighted, etc... where would it be now, and where would we be?

Later On,
D

[Just17]

Think of what would have happened had Linux been patented, copy-protected, copyrighted, etc... where would it be now, and where would we be?

It is   

[bicol_willem]

Filthy, thieving, money-grubbing bustards!  I agree that, if genes are patentable, then those who provide the sources for the genetic materials used must be fairly compensated (and I'm talking substantial royalties here, too!)

This ruling must not be allowed to stand - it is tantamount to patenting Hydrogen.  (Now I've done it!  Some other company will try that next...)

Later On,
D

+ 1  ,   One day they will patent live itself. You can only live when you (can) pay. bad men!

[kjpetrie]

There are many people in the world who are already in that position. It's called hunger.

[Wildman]

Filthy, thieving, money-grubbing bustards!  I agree that, if genes are patentable, then those who provide the sources for the genetic materials used must be fairly compensated (and I'm talking substantial royalties here, too!)

This ruling must not be allowed to stand - it is tantamount to patenting Hydrogen.  (Now I've done it!  Some other company will try that next...)

Later On,
D

+ 1  ,   One day they will patent live itself. You can only live when you (can) pay. bad men!

Monsanto has all ready done this.

[horusfalcon]

Filthy, thieving, money-grubbing bustards!  I agree that, if genes are patentable, then those who provide the sources for the genetic materials used must be fairly compensated (and I'm talking substantial royalties here, too!)

This ruling must not be allowed to stand - it is tantamount to patenting Hydrogen.  (Now I've done it!  Some other company will try that next...)

Later On,
D

+ 1  ,   One day they will patent live itself. You can only live when you (can) pay. bad men!

Monsanto has all ready done this.

Surely you jest!  I believe it would be trivially easy to argue that there's prior art.