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."

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?

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...

[king neckbeard]

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