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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« AMP v. USPTO: What the Parties Are Saying About the Decision | Main | Conference & CLE Calendar »

April 02, 2010


100$ if you mention me by moniker Kev. Just work it into the conversation. You can mention me as someone who knows enough to know that he doesn't know the correct answer to the issue.

Dear 6:

As much as a poor patent attorney could use the money, we taped this interview last November. Sorry - maybe next time.

man kev they seem to have stacked the deck against you right from the preview.



We usually don't agree, but I've got to say never did you say truer words.


As I told you, you did as well as you could, given that "60 Minutes" stacked the deck against you at the outset. "60 Minutes" obviously wasn't interested in presenting a "fair and balanced" debate (yes, I watch Fox News almost exclusively and will continue to do so), but in only presenting one side of the story, including vilifying those who (lawfully and properly) get patents on "isolated" gene sequences as "greedy" and "evil."

Like the rest of the popular media and the ACLU, "60 Minutes" can't present the facts, science, or law accurately or objectively. I also stand by my prior statement: journalism as we once knew it is "dead" in the news media, and this "60 Minutes" segment on the gene patent controversy is just another "poster child" for why that's the case.

I just lost all my respect for 60 Minutes after watching that incomplete and unbalanced hatchet job of a "story." Kevin, thanks for doing the best you could. I wish they'd given you about 10x more air time than they did.

Dear 6:

It's hard to be a righteous man in an unjust world. Thanks for the support.

Link for those of you that haven't seen it:


Kev, next time you go on TV you need to have a shot of vodka or do some yoga that morning or something. You were as jittery as a doormouse. Funny enough, it seems the topic of conversation just happened to be one that me and you have touched on before. I'd think that you'd have come to make your peace with your position by now. I mean, have a little confidence.

Oh and btw, if you're in the dc area you can come work out with me and the boys at the pto.

"yes, I watch Fox News almost exclusively and will continue to do so"

Well we just found out what's wrong with EG.

EG were you aware that they're not even a news network for the hours of day that you're most likely watching them? They're a commentary station during those hours, by their own admission and registration. They're not delivering you news. They're delivering you commentary with some news sprinkled amongst their commentary. Their segments are registered as "commentary" not "news". Just an FYI. Take it for what you will.

I will stand by the piece as being "news". I admit that they don't appear to have given Kev much time to talk about the interesting parts, but then again, Kev may not have demanded it.

I have to admit that the more I hear about these cases I'm reminded of the preemption doctrine from Benson.

"As we stated in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 , "He who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes. "

That's a bummer.

But for a kicker, let's take a look at:

"It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula for converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case."

I wonder, since it is conceded that one may not patent a gene, do the instant patents have that pratical effect? If so, whoa be unto these patents I do think. I wonder if my Fox News watching buddies will answer a yes or no for me if they know the answer.

Funny, 6, maybe they put in the jittery parts - no one else seems to think so.

Since you are a fan of Funk Bros., read Frakfurter's concurrence. It's enlightening.

And by the way, so far the only place where you can't patent a gene is the Southern District of New York, and then not conclusively - the next case in the jurisdiction could come out the opposite way.

Bummer for them.

Thanks for the comments, and the critique.

O fo shizzle there is "extra" in the videos as an addon edition. One on the USSC, one with Kev on the pros and cons and one other one.


You should see the comments on this 60 Minutes segment on the CBS web site. There's quite a bit of "Kool-Aid" drinking going on over there.

6, yes I watch Fox News, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And yes, I'm what you call a political conservative, but I'm also not a fan of Sean Hannity either. In fact, I had more respect for Alan Colmes when they were together.

So then I take it that your answer is that you don't think that the instant patents would have the same practical effect as patenting the unisolated gene?

I wouldn't say that I'm a fan o the funk bros. But I am a fan of the law. Sort of, kinda, and maybe. At least a little bit. To that end, I am concerned about the practical effect of such claims. As the Fed. Circ. likely will be should anyone bother to present them with the argument.

I didn't find anything rather enlightening about Frankfurter's concurrence in Funk bros.


He seems to just blather on and on about his view of the situation and then tells us that he's trying to take a position on which future matters could not be resolved. How is that enlightening? Or did I miss something crucial? I don't want to be a bad student, but I'm just not finding it.

Btw, EG, you're right, there is nothing wrong with watching Fox News. I myself watch it from time to time. It has entertainment value that far surpasses that which a mere news network could deliver. Just as any good commentary station should.


I just checked the CBS web site again. The "Kool-Aid" drinking continues over there.

You can read my published law review article on why gene patents should inspire legislative reform at : http://omnilegalgroup.com/publications.html

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

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