E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Patent Office Remains Closed for February 10, 2010 | Main | USPTO Remains Closed For February 11, 2010 »

February 10, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20120a88bdb7a970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Debating Gene Patents - Round Four:

Comments

Recalling this same debate from the early 1980s, hasn't this been asked and answered? Leftists are incredibly persistent in pursuit of bad ideas, and not particularly honest. If they're concerned about the costs of Myriad's test, it seems the above-board approach would be to have the Government/private insurance pay for it through Medicaid and State mandates. As for the support of academe, well, we politically conscious folks have long known that the noisy part (and probably the bulk) of that world migrated left a long time ago.

Thanks for this excellent summary of the debate. This is not really a left/right issue, actually. Voices on both ends of the political spectrum may agree.

Speaking as a patent professional and currently a BD and Licensing Associate at a respected research university, I find it interesting that little thought has been given to including licensing and tech transfer professionals in either the case or these debates. We are, after all, the people on the frontlines everyday of making the decisions of whether to develop IP for such advancements, and how we make that determination is very impacted by the realities of the patent and regulatory systems, modern biotech R&D, investment and all the other components that go into getting a discovery out of the ivy halls and onto the streets.

As a Canadian IP lawyer, watching this debate unfold has been fascinating - particularly in terms of its tenacity. "Gene" patenting has been questioned and criticized in Canada, but I am frankly surprised by the success and mass appeal of the anti "gene" patenting camp in the US. I think language is in part responsible. Words can, although being scientifically correct, carry unintended baggage - "gene patenting", "cloning" and "genetically modified foods" being examples of such words. As a result, the debate becomes emotional and is as a consequence muddled.

Thanks for the excellent coverage!

Leftists are incredibly persistent in pursuit of bad ideas, and not particularly honest.

LOL.

How do hypocritical mouthbreathers like "max hensley" feed themselves?

I think they need to have Kev back on the show and have me on the phone as an advisor for Kev so he doesn't say anything mistakenly.

I'm heartened by Chung's advocacy of patent pools as a possible middle ground. The introduction of such pools is one of the most exciting developments in patent law today. Although line-drawing currently remains an issue, patent pools potentially provide a means for creating a more equitable patent system.
http://www.GeneralPatent.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31