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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

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


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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Appellees Move for Recusal of Chief Judge Rader in AMP v. USPTO Appeal »

July 18, 2010

Comments

Kevin,

Facts are definitely the antidote, provided the "Kook-Aid" drinking as evidenced by Ms. Washington's article stops. Also, let's not forget the other important point I made on the other thread as what will happen if patenting becomes too difficult on biotech: making it more difficult for American biotech/pharma to grow/invest capital which means loss of (or failure to create) American jobs. American job loss/failure to create jobs is the important economic reality here, and is one even the politicians understand (and SCOTUS unfortunately is clueless about). The jobs issue is also one I've yet to see those so anti-gene patent respond to and especially factually address how not protecting biotech will foster/avoid loss of jobs. May be the answer is they can't.

I hope this person also posted this comment on the Huffington Post. Same for everyone else who took issue with the many factual errors/outright misrepresentations in the article, including you Kevin. We patent professionals need to get our views on gene patenting out to the general public and counter the errors when and where they are first made.

"the patent system promotes disclosure and the advancement of the useful arts, i.e., technology."

See Kev, I think you're going to have problems at this point. Most people wouldn't consider a string of DNA from their body sans junk to really be "technology".

I'm still curious about your personal role in the chilling effect that gene patenting has promoted.

Overall though, a great article about how the lady may have been off on her facts by a bit.

"Finally, it is good to paint the picture of what would happen if these inventions could not be protected."

Companies might be compelled to come up with the best actual technology based on these "inventions"? I'm not really sure where you think you're going with this.

"Patents require disclosure to a degree not required by scientific journal articles and other sources,"

Indeed, in my art I all too often come up against NPL references that are on simplified embodiments that demonstrate a certain concept that is meant to be applied to a somewhat more complex embodiment that couldn't (or simply wasn't bothered with, or there was some other reason to simplify the demonstration, like testing etc) be made in their humble laboratory. It is helpful when they explicitly say "oh and btw, you should totally use this in the more complex embodiment, I'm telling you this because you're not one of ordinary skill and it wasn't apparent to you why I did this experiment in the first place".

"The alternative would be the antithesis of this reality, where there would be significant incentive not to disclose genetic and other information."

Hmmm, kind of like in Myriad's case where a competing research group published one week after Myriad filed? Sure Kev. You're totally convincing on that point.

Facts, also, is facts. Two students just bested the multi-billion dollar bio industry. How did they do this? They engaged in a bit of that useful arts tomfoolery that the bio industry is loath to do and turned a salad spinner into a centrifuge. Which, to be honest, I had kind of thought had already been done, but apparently hadn't.

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/salad-spinner-centrifuge-a-cheap-ingenious-health-care-tool-2019637/

To be 100% honest, I see plenty of opportunity in the bio industry for straight up useful arts rather than trying to patent abstractions.

6,

Would that be the "new" useful arts as described by the majority in Bilski, or the 18th century useful arts as described by the minority in Bilski?

"Would that be the "new" useful arts as described by the majority in Bilski, or the 18th century useful arts as described by the minority in Bilski?"

I think you mean the "new" useful arts as described by a 4 person minority in Bilski opposing the 18th century useful arts as described by another 4 person minority in Bilski. Scalia just couldn't seem to make up his mind on that issue.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2018

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