View Single Post
Old
04-16-2013, 01:49 AM
  #14
Unaffiliated
Registered User
 
Unaffiliated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Richmond, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,115
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I agree. I found the ruling by the lower court truly bizarre:
The question before the court is whether isolated human genes are products of nature, and therefore ineligible for patents, or are sufficiently different from the genes found inside the bodys cells.

The plaintiffs won the first round when Judge Robert W. Sweet of Federal District Court in Manhattan said that isolated DNA was the same as DNA in the body in what really mattered the genetic information it carries.

But Myriad prevailed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, twice, by 2-to-1 decisions. One of the majority opinions said that DNA was a chemical, not an information medium, and that disconnecting DNA from the chromosome changed it enough structurally to qualify for patenting.
That is simply laughable. The individual bases certainly are chemicals, but the entire point -- and purpose to the sequence -- is that it's an information medium which represents a product that may have significance in a disease.

I think the other thing mentioned in the article is that the point may be moot. The majority of outstanding diseases for which a better diagnostic is needed may need different markers (post-translational processing) and other biochemical triggers.
Ridiculous. You could use that logic on ink, bits, etc.

Unaffiliated is offline   Reply With Quote