Why would you say that I was wrong? You do realize that there is complete unanimity in the field that the Federal Circuit will reverse Judge Sweet. His decision is intellectually dishonest, wrong on the law, wrong on the facts and shows a complete bias toward scientific advancement and lack of respect for precedent.

Other than that he was spot on though.

Please do try and educate yourself.

-Gene

A patent gives the holder the right to exclude others from making, using or selling their invention. 35 USC 154. It does not give the holder the right to make, use or sell their invention. A monopoly is an exclusive right to a market, such as an electric utility company. An electric utility company has the exclusive right to sell electricity in a certain territory. Since a patent does not even given the holder the right to sell their invention, let alone an exclusive right to a market, it is clearly not a monopoly.

When a person describes a patent as a monopoly to be consistent they should also state that they have a monopoly over their car or over their house. In fact, they have more rights in their car and house than a patent gives the inventor over their invention, since you have a right to use and sell your car or house. A patent does not give these rights to an inventor over his invention. All invention are built upon existing elements (conservation of matter) and if the elements that the invention uses are patented, then the inventor will not have the right to sell their invention without a license.

Some economists argue that a patent is designed to give the holder monopoly power. Those economists who are consistent also state that all property rights give some monopoly power. The property rights are monopolies thesis shows how confused economic thought is on this subject. The only logically consistent definition of a monopoly is an exclusive right to a market.

People who suggest a patent is a monopoly are not being intellectually honest and perpetuating a myth to advance a political agenda.

For more information on patents and innovation see http://www.hallingblog.com.

Your statement above: “Also… SOMETHING IN ALTERED STATE DOES NOT OCCUR NATURALLY!”

The alteration they state in their claims ARE NATURALLY OCURRING. They are not something Myriad does to the DNA. – Again, your argument that there is any kind of alteration produced by Myriad is flawed.

Whether you agree with it or not isn’t the issue. The fact that you don’t approve doesn’t mean that others who do approve and do understand the patent laws shouldn’t receive patents.

-Gene

I personally think you don’t understand patent law. If you want to talk micro biology that is fine, but if you refuse to acknowledge that all that is required for patentability is alteration then there is not much to talk about. I think you would do very well to brush up on patent law before you make broad statements and jump to conclusions that my arguments are flawed.

What kind of arrogance does it take to believe that you know patent law because you are a scientist and then chastise me. If you choose to believe I am wrong, fine. Everyone is allowed to live with their own ignorance if that is what they prefer.

-Gene

I never said that I was sequencing BRCA1/2 in my lab. What I said was I know how much sequencing reactions costs and they are nowhere near the amount Myriad charges for this simple task.

In claim 1 you underlined “isolated”. Myriad/University of Utah did NOT invent the methodology of isolation of this gene or any other gene. You also underlined the word “altered” and you keep saying this means it’s not naturally ocurring. Maybe this is because you simply don’t understand molecular biology. The word “altered” in this claim means other than wild-type (non-mutant) form of the gene. This is something that occurs naturally. It’s not something Myriad scientists do after they isolate the gene. So your argument is completely flawed.

For all the claims you underlined “method of detection”. Once again, Myriad/University of Utah did NOT invent the methodology they use to identify the NATURALLY ocurring mutant forms of BRCA1/2.

Myriad would not be the most hated diagnostic company if they had favorable licensing terms for these genes. Actually any licensing would have been better than the complete monopoly they have over this diagnostic test.

You may think that everything you write is 100% true, but it’s probably because you don’t have a clear understanding of the science behind all of this. The claims I read in these gene patents are simply ridiculous, and so are your attempts to defend them.

I notice that you didn’t say anything about the 5 patents that claim diagnostic methods, because if you did you and anyone who is intellectually honest would have to completely agree with me that the ACLU lied in the complaint.

I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree regarding what you call mutant forms of genes. The claims clearly identify isolation (which does NOT occur in nature) and other things that require human intervention. The fact that you do not like genetic engineering that requires human action (which again, by the way, does NOT occur in nature) does not mean that I am wrong. What it actually means is that you are wrong.

Patents do drive innovation, they do not get in the way of innovation.

As for your admission that you are infringing the Myriad Genetics patent every day in your lab, that was really stupid of you. Substantively, however, you ignore the cost of figuring out the science involved and are focusing only on the costs after millions have been spent and many dead ends pursued. Even assuming it only does cost a few dollars, I suppose Myriad and others should donate the millions, or in some cases billions, and then only charge what it costs after all sunk costs are removed from the equation. That is simply absurd, and I am sure you realize it.

At least we agree that misinformation is bad. Of course, everything I wrote was 100% true, despite your attempts to challenge my indisputable factual assertions.

-Gene

Additionally, patents are supposed to drive innovation, not provide a single company the means to monopolize a genetic test. Myriad charges $3000 for simple sequencing of a gene that costs no more than a few dollars. I know this, because I do this every day in my lab.

I agree that misinformation can lead to bad decisions. Unfortunately, your article misinforms your readers about what these “gene” patents are really about.