I’m surprised an attorney was unable to come up with “I don’t think you should be giving away free stuff, but as long as you’re determined to give it I’ll take a dozen!”

Not getting gene patents is only fair if everybody else is also not getting gene patents. Otherwise, all it means is that everybody else is getting gene patents except you, and what kind of way is that to run a business or research lab?

Duke is not the first organisation to suffer from institutional bipolar disorder over gene patents. I recall an interesting lunch hour session at an AIPLA October meeting in Washington in the mid-1990s. The Hugo gene mapping project was in full stride. From the outside it looked like the patent department at NIH was feeding the readout from the gene sequencing computers into its patent drafting word processors. A number of applications had been filed. It was before PAIRS had made patent prosecution a spectator sport, but NIH had decided to make its prosecution files available to the public in real time.

The lunchtime session featured a biotech specialist attorney who had read one of these files. He summarised the first official action outlining the usual 102, 103 and 112 objections. What was different about this action though, was the 101 objection. Instead of the expected citations it included a copy of a letter that the head of the NIH had sent to the head of the USPTO stating that the NIH did not believe that genes should be patented.
The attorney did not have any quick suggestions for responding to that one!

vs

those who didn’t, (not on some opinion about gene patents in general)

…so since that is exactly what Aaron said, he seemed to fit nicely there, and still does… Doug, I felt, expressed that the situation was not hypocrisy, but rather just a “stuff up”… but I could be mistaken. Most commentators seemed to understand the nature of universities, and the impossible ideological threshold that Gene wants to hold Duke to. Moreover, my reasons for saying Duke isn’t monolithically guilty of hypocrisy are both clearly stated, and so far unassailed. Of course, for Gene to win an argument, all he must do is say all others are losing it. That seems to be the measure. I just think it’s rather more complicated than Gene’s article lets on, and changing the topic to gene patents in general, as Gene is trying to do, isn’t helping his claim about Duke’s alleged hypocrisy. It’s a university, with different departments, varied interests, and academic freedom, so to expect some sort of unified point of view, much less immediate or concerted action on the basis of a study is naive, or nuts. Take your pick.

I’m not trying to put you in it. The tally was of people “who think [Gene's] claim of hypocrisy is off target”, and it looks like you were correctly pigeonholed.

Nobody is taking sides for or against Gene generally, as far as I can tell.

Gene: “To those who are philosophically opposed to patents why don’t you just move to a place where there is no patent protection?”

Because it’s hot in most of those countries, and a strawman that big would be a fire hazard.

There’s a huge middle ground between “love it” and “leave it”. That middle ground includes “work to improve it by advocating for change to policies you think could be improved”. Isn’t that what this whole blog is about?

I don’t think Duke is being hypocritical because I think that faculty can hold contrary positions without compromising their integrity, but that’s not the point anymore. I’m new to commenting here, so I think I’m missing some of the personal history and beliefs, however, if there’s an anti-gene patent camp, I don’t really want to be in it. I have my tribal tattoos to think of, y’know.

You say: “I know how Myriad uses their patents.”

I cannot recall you ever pointing out that insurance typically covers 90% of the Myriad test, and Myriad also has a program to assist those who are uninsured. So the trouble you have with the Myriad patents seems to be that those with insurance or the resources to pay are unable to get a second opinion.

I suspect you will go back to the blocking of research and innovation, but even the Duke study you like so much talks about it being very difficult but not impossible to innovate around the patents. So the reality is there is just a lot of whining from scientists who don’t want to have to actually innovate, and a lot of whining from those who are philosophically opposed to patents in general.

To those who are philosophically opposed to patents why don’t you just move to a place where there is no patent protection? There are plenty of third-world countries where you could practice any patented invention you like because they don’t have patent systems and/or because those who innovate don’t obtain patents in those places. Those countries should be the Eden that you seem to be so searching for.

-Gene

Funny indeed.

I don’t mind you repositioning your own name in the tally (we all know how neutral you are about everything), but how you slotted Aaron’s “This is not hypocrisy on the part of Duke” into the “neutral” camp is beyond me. While we’re at it, you can’t really put Doug any closer to Gene than “neutral” based on his post.

I do apologize for not giving any sort of reason for my opinion in post 31. I sincerely believed that I had given one or two decent ones.

As you astutely point out, it does matter how you count “noses” and making sure all “noses” are accounted for.

But let’s take a closer look, shall we? Of your list David, I know that you, Adam and IANAE play loose with the understanding of the law to fit your own private agendas (sorry Adam – I don’t think you know the law, but you state opinions on the law that place you in the same class as the other two).

Doug’s comment was more in agreement with Gene than with you.

Aaron’s comment, while disagreeing on its face, is more in substance with Gene’s side than with yours.

You missed Steve’s agreement with Gene.

I never said one way or the other what I think of the opinion of hypocrisy (other than yours). I did point out that scrutiny of those who use a bully pulpit is a good thing. You don’t have an issue with that, do you?

So you see, like most things associated with law, here too, your understanding is colored by your agenda and how you want things to be.

So a bit more accurate of a talley:
Disagree with Gene: DK, HK, Adam, IANAE (and I would consider HK’s the only opinion with some reason)
Neutral: Me, Chris, Aaron
Agree with Gene: Gene, EG, Steve, Doug.

Funny how one’s viewpoint colors reality, isn’t it?