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

« BIO International Convention 2014 Preview | Main | News from Abroad: Double Patenting at the EPO -- What Does "Same Subject Matter" Mean? »

June 17, 2014

Comments

There is a slight twist going on here.

Data is free - OBTAINING the data is not free.

What those against Myriad really want is a costless obtainment of the data that Myriad "paid" for.

"Paid" in quotes to deflect the counter that it was client's of Myriad that actually did the paying. The payment by Myriad was in the collecting of the free data. There is NOTHING stopping competitors from seeking out and collecting that same data. Of course, do so, they would incur the same transactional costs that Myriad has already "paid."

That's a side of the story that seems only too eager to be obfuscated.

The arguments against Myriad if taken to their logical extremes would be in essence the same as outlawing Trade Secrets.

Perhaps if the "data wants to be free" crowd were really concerned with that plank of their agenda, they should push Congress directly on that point. Perhaps a bill from Congress MANDATING complete and open documentation of ALL competitive knowledge of any company operating in, or selling in, the United States (US1) would most directly aid this Utopian Society (US2).

Of course, Lincoln (and John Smith) would be spinning in their respective graves were we to collectivize this aspect of innovation. As would many others who fought to make this country a brave and FREE one.

Hmmm. Does the use of "Free" cause each of these statements to be indefinite, given that the word can have such different meanings? (oops, that's a rant on a different subject)

Skeptical--I totally agree that Congress should mandate disclosure of corporate knowledge. After all, now that corporations are people (Citizens United) and people can't have secrets from the NSA, why should corporations be allowed to have secrets? How very selfish of corporations, to want to cherry-pick only the aspects of personhood that benefit them. Free the data! All of it!

Corain,

I think that your "agreement" is a bit misplaced - what is the emitocon for snarky sarcasm?

If the court buys into Pathway Genomics rhetoric, they are really drinking the kool-aid, which I believe they are not.

Pathway Genomics is a for-profit company with shareholders looking to maximize their return on investment. There is no charitable intention here, just pure greed.

If you can sequence a whole genome for $1,000 today, Pathway's cost is probably under $500/test, which makes for a nice profit if you can sell the court on this spin.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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