I know how to have fun, right? Here’s a picture from my hotel room taken moments ago:
But I’ve been thinking about this:
[W]e hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated…
So that settles it, right?
Here’s a headline from USA Today after the Supreme Court Ruling. Myriad Genetics Shares Soar on Court Decision.
I think it’s because of the second part of that sentence written by Thomas, after my … Here’s the entire sentence.
For the reasons that follow, we hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.
Complementary DNA, or cDNA, is synthetic. In my very rudimentary understanding, cDNA takes actual DNA and removes parts, allowing for the mutation testing. So while the genes can’t be patented, the processes of testing for the mutation can be.
- Research is expensive and risky. Shouldn’t companies have the opportunity to protect their investment with patents?
- Would a person or a company invest in research if there weren’t the possibility of a payoff (patent protection) in the end?
- Or does the ubiquity of patents keep the smaller companies out of the industry entirely?
- How big of a deal is this ruling, really?
- I’ve heard from many that the real barrier to entry for research is the cost of excessive regulation. Maybe this patent conversation can’t be had in a vacuum. That is the subject for another post, when I don’t have the ocean to stare at.