Will the Supreme Court End Human Gene Patents? 228
An anonymous reader writes "Monday, the Supreme Court will hear a case on the validity of breast cancer gene patents. The court has a chance to end human gene patents after three decades. From the article: 'Since the 1980s, patent lawyers have been claiming pieces of humanity's genetic code. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted thousands of gene patents. The Federal Circuit, the court that hears all patent appeals, has consistently ruled such patents are legal.
But the judicial winds have been shifting. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the legality of gene patents. And recently, the Supreme Court has grown increasingly skeptical of the Federal Circuit's patent-friendly jurisprudence.
Meanwhile, a growing number of researchers, health care providers, and public interest groups have raised concerns about the harms of gene patents. The American Civil Liberties Union estimates that more than 40 percent of genes are now patented. Those patents have created "patent thickets" that make it difficult for scientists to do genetic research and commercialize their results. Monopolies on genetic testing have raised prices and reduced patient options.'"
Re:The purpose of a gene is a discovery (Score:4, Informative)
Clearly finding out the purpose of a gene will always be a discovery and not an invention. Discoveries are not patentable.
"The term “invention” means invention or discovery." 35 U.S.C. 100(a) [cornell.edu]. You can argue that this is not what the law should be, but this has been the law in the United States since at least 1952.
Re:I don't know the answer. (Score:5, Informative)
Is figuring out what constitutes a gene for something really the Herculean effort (deserving of patent protection) it used to be?
As AC pointed out, "Herculean effort" is not necessarily deserving of patent protection. That being said, yes, figuring out what constitutes "the gene for X" (which for the vast majority of diseases is actually more like "the N genes and assorted epigenetic modifications for X," where N is some fairly large number) is still in most cases a task which would challenge even a demigod. Since those of us working in the fields aren't demigods, we have to rely on a whole lot of skull sweat and processor cycles. It still doesn't mean we should get to patent what we discover through this process, for the simple reason that they are discoveries rather than inventions.
If past history is any indication... (Score:4, Informative)
Dred Scott v Sandford -- slaves are private property
Roe v Wade -- an unborn child is private property
This case -- your genes are private property, when a company "isolates" them from the human body
Way to go 'Chief Justices' - reassign what is God's, to man...