USSC holds genes non-patentable

[konradv]

Prevents a company from discovering a gene that causes a disease and patenting that discovery such that no one else may develop a test for that gene. Their methods for testing the gene and any cDNA made by them is patentable.

This is a great decision, since research would be severely hampered, if the company's claim had been upheld. Basically any naturally occurring gene sequence is non-patentable and the attempt to stop others from studying them has been disallowed.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Moonglow]

good

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

I agree, it was a good judgment.

good

(COMMENT)

I read the SCOTUS Syllabus; and the logic is complicated. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf) I'm not sure as a layman, what the ramifications are.

I'm not sure what the implications are in this case. Is it going to make further research and developments in this arena less expensive to the public? Has it made it more legally complicated?

What is the benefit of this ruling to the public?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[konradv]

et al,

I agree, it was a good judgment.

good

(COMMENT)

I read the Syllabus, and the logic is complicated. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf)

I'm not sure what the implications are in this case. Is it going to make further research and developments in this arena less expensive to the public? Has it made it more legally complicated?

What is the benefit of this ruling to the public?

Most Respectfully,
R

It ensured continued research. If the company in question had been allowed to patent a naturally occurring gene, they could have prevented others from developing even better methods of detection and treatment of disease.