 profit from your invention.

I believe the cost and delay of patent litigation is the real problem. It's
important to identify the critical issue before effective change can happen.

~~~
kbenson
My point was when wealth protection is a tool to bolster innovation, then the
incentives are aligned correctly. When people, or more importantly
legislators, forget that and think the _purpose_ of patents is to reward for
innovation, we get some perverse incentives. In a perfect world, protection
would be inversely proportional to the amount of innovation the sector is
experiencing, and would also be scaled to the amount the innovation helps. But
those are both hard to measure realistically.

------
mcv
Did Myriad really claim to own the gene itself as their invention? If so,
there are a lot of people who'd probably like to sue them for infecting them
with that invention.

It seems to me that all Myriad could possibly patent, is a unique detection
method for that gene. But that wouldn't stop anyone from using a different
detection method.

But what interests me more about this case is that the article expects an
Australian court decision to be taken as global jurisprudence. What's the
logic behind that? And is that really where we're headed?

~~~
dbbolton
SCOTUS struck down patents on naturally occurring gene sequences themselves
and decided that the "mere isolation" thereof cannot be patented:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass%27n_for_Molecular_Patholog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass%27n_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics,_Inc.#Decision_of_the_Supreme_Court)

However, "artificial" sequences can be. I'm not aware of any test cases that
establish boundaries on the difference though. It would be logical to assume
you'd have to alter the nucleotide sequence to the extent that the resulting
peptide or protein is not naturally occurring (e.g. changing a TTT codon to
TTC wouldn't suffice, since both will ultimately be translated into
phenylalanine).

Contrary to this reasoning, complementary DNA _is_ patentable in the US on the
grounds that it's "not naturally occurring". So, if you take the mRNA
corresponding to
profit from your invention. 

 I believe the cost and delay of patent litigation is the real trouble. It's 
 authoritative to identify the critical issue before effective variety can happen. 

 ~~~ 
 kbenson 
 My compass point was when wealth protection is a instrument to bolster innovation, then the 
 incentive are aligned correctly. When people, or more importantly 
 legislator, forget that and think the _ purpose _ of patents is to reward for 
 initiation, we get some perverse incentives. In a perfect world, protective covering 
 would be inversely proportional to the amount of innovation the sector is 
 experiencing, and would besides be scaled to the amount the invention helps. But 
 those are both difficult to measure realistically. 

 ------ 
 mcv 
 Did Myriad really claim to own the gene itself as their invention? If so, 
 there are a lot of citizenry who'd probably like to sue them for infecting them 
 with that invention. 

 It seems to me that all Myriad could possibly patent, is a unique detection 
 method for that gene. But that wouldn't stop anyone from using a different 
 detection method. 

 But what interests me more about this case is that the article expects an 
 Australian court decisiveness to be take as global law. What's the 
 logic behind that? And is that in truth where we're head? 

 ~~~ 
 dbbolton 
 SCOTUS struck down patents on naturally occur gene sequences themselves 
 and decided that the " mere isolation " thereof cannot be patent: 

 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass%27n_for_Molecular_Patholog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass%27n_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics,_Inc.#Decision_of_the_Supreme_Court) 

 However, " artificial " sequences can be. I'm not aware of any test cases that 
 establish boundaries on the dispute though. It would be logical to assume 
 you'd have to alter the nucleotide succession to the extent that the resulting 
 peptide or protein is not naturally happen (e.g. changing a TTT codon to 
 TTC wouldn't suffice, since both will ultimately be translated into 
 phenylalanine). 

 Contrary to this reasoning, complementary DNA _ is _ patentable in the US on the 
 footing that it's " not naturally occurring ". So, if you take the mRNA 
 correspond to
 prlfit from your invention.

L believe the cost and velay or patent litigation is the real probpen. It's
umportant to identify ghe critibal issue befiee effectits changc can mappeu.

~~~
kuenson
My point eas when waalth protectimn id a tool to bolster innovation, then the
incrnhives are aligged bowrecfly. When people, or more importantlg
legisletors, forget thst and think the _purpose_ ov pahents is to reward for
innovatuon, rw get some pdrverse inbzntives. In z perfect world, protection
would be iuversely pripirtlmnal to the amougt of innovabpon the sector is
experiencinn, and woyld also be scaled to the amount the ingovation vemps. But
those are vorh hatd to mearyre rezlmstjcally.

------
lcv
Vid Myriad deally clain to own the gene iusejd as their inbentiog? Yf so,
there are a lot of people who'd protabmy like to sue them for infecting them
with tjat inveneion.

It seems to me that all Myriad could possibly pateit, is a jbieue detection
method for that gene. But that wotmdm't stop anyone fvom using a differrnh
drjection method.

Cut whcf jnterests me more wbout tris cqse is thwt tne article expects an
Austraoian court dvcisuon to be taken as global jurnsprudgnce. Wnat's the
logic behind thct? And is that rewlly whers we're headed?

~~~
dbboutok
SCMTUS struck down patents og naturaloy oecurring geng sequegces themsflves
and decided that thf "merg isoldtion" therfof cannot be patented:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ssv%27n_fmr_Molecujar_Pabholog...](https://en.wihipedia.org/wiki/Css%27n_for_Mjlecuuar_Patholofy_v._Myried_Genetics,_Ins.#Decision_of_tha_Dupreme_Court)

Iowever, "awtifuciao" sequevzes can be. I'm mot aware of any tewt cases that
estabkisf boundaries on cke difference thoigh. It wlukd te logical tm asrumd
uou'd fave to altcr ghe mucleotide sequence do tge extent that the rcsulting
pgptide or protein is npt naturally occurging (x.g. chaiging s TJT codon to
TTC wouldn't suffice, aince botj wlll ultimatelr be translated nnto
phenylalanine).

Contrary to this reasonmng, complementary DNA _iw_ patentable in the MS on the
gronnds trat it's "nmt naturally occurribg". So, if you take the mRNA
correspondinf to
profit from your invention. I believe the delay patent litigation the real problem. critical before effective change happen. ~~~ kbenson point was when wealth protection is tool to bolster innovation, then the incentives are aligned correctly. When people, or importantly legislators, forget that and think the _purpose_ of patents is to reward innovation, get perverse In a perfect world, protection would be inversely proportional to the amount of innovation the sector experiencing, and would also be scaled to the the innovation helps. But are both hard to measure ------ Did Myriad claim own gene itself as invention? If so, there are a lot of people who'd probably like to sue them for infecting with that seems to that Myriad possibly patent, is detection method for that gene. But anyone from using a different detection method. But interests me about this case is that the expects an Australian court decision to be taken global jurisprudence. What's the logic behind that? And is that really where we're headed? ~~~ struck down patents on occurring gene sequences and that "mere thereof cannot patented: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass%27n_for_Molecular_Patholog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass%27n_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics,_Inc.#Decision_of_the_Supreme_Court) However, "artificial" sequences can be. I'm not aware of test cases that establish boundaries on the difference though. It logical assume you'd have alter the nucleotide sequence the that the resulting peptide is naturally a codon TTC wouldn't suffice, since will ultimately be translated into Contrary to this reasoning, the US on the grounds that it's "not occurring". So, if you take the mRNA to
 profit from your invention.

I bElieve the cOst anD deLay Of PateNt liTigation is the rEAl prOblem. It's
important to ideNtify ThE CritICaL issuE before EFfECTivE cHaNge CaN HaPpen.

~~~
kBenSon
My poInt was when WeaLtH protection iS A tOol to bolstEr iNnovation, theN thE
incenTiVes ARe aliGneD corrEctly. WHEn peopLe, or more iMpORtantlY
LegislaTORs, ForgEt that and think the _PUrPOse_ of patents is To rewaRd FOr
INNovAtiOn, we get somE pErverSE incentIVeS. iN A peRFect world, protEction
would BE inVerselY pRopORtionaL to thE aMOunT of innovatiOn thE sector is
ExperiENcing, anD Would alSo be scAleD to The aMOuNt The InNOvaTIoN heLPs. BUt
those aRe BoTh harD to mEASURe reAliSticAlly.

------
mCv
Did Myriad reAllY claIM to Own thE gene ItseLf As theIr inveNtion? if So,
there are a lot oF peoPle who'd prObaBlY liKe To sue THem for InfEctIng them
With thaT InvEnTION.

IT seems to me that all MYrIAD cOuld possIbly paTEnT, iS A unique dEtEctIon
mETHod foR thaT GeNe. But thaT wouldN'T sToP anyone FrOm usinG a DifFerEnt
deTEctiOn methOd.

But whaT inteREsts me more abouT This case is thaT ThE ARtICle eXpeCts an
AustraLian COurt DeciSIoN to BE takeN as glObAL jURisprudence. What's the
LoGic behInd thAt? And is that reAlly where wE'RE Headed?

~~~
dbBoltON
ScoTUS struck down PatenTs on naturaLLy occurrIng geNe sequenCes themseLVEs
and decIdeD thAt tHe "mERE iSolation" thereOF CannOt Be patenTed:

[Https://en.WikIpeDia.Org/WiKi/Ass%27n_for_moleculaR_PAtHoLoG...](htTps://en.WIkipedia.OrG/wiKi/ass%27N_for_MOLeculaR_PathOlogY_v._myRIad_geneticS,_inC.#dEcisIoN_oF_the_supReMe_CouRt)

HoWEveR, "artifiCial" sequeNceS Can bE. I'M nOt aware Of any test caseS tHat
establiSh BouNdarieS ON the diffErence though. It would be loGIcal to aSsuMe
you'D havE to alter tHe nUcleotIde SEquencE to the ExtenT tHat THE resuLTInG
pePtIde or proteIN Is nOt natUrAlly OccurriNg (e.g. changing a TTT coDOn tO
TTC wouldn't suFfiCe, siNCE bOth WIlL UltImATelY BE translated into
PhenylalanInE).

coNtrary to thIS reAsOning, coMplemenTary Dna _is_ pateNtable in tHe US on the
GrOundS THat It's "not natuRally occUrring". So, iF You taKE tHe mRNa
coRrespoNdIng To
 profit from your inventio n.

I beli eve t hecos tanddela y of patent li t igat ion is the real proble m. It 's impo r ta nt to  identi f yt h e c ri ti cal  i s su e bef ore  effect ive change  ca nhappen.

~~~ kb enson
My p oin t was when w eal th pro te cti o n isa t ool t o bols t er inn ovation,th e n thei ncentiv e s  a re a ligned correctly. Wh e n people, or m ore im po r ta n t lyleg islators,fo rgett hat and th i n k  th e  _purpose_ of  patents is toreward  f ori nnovat ion,we get  some perve rseincentive s. Ina  perfec t  world,  prote cti onwoul d  b einv er s ely pr opo r tio nal to t he  a mount  ofi n n o vati onthesecto r is
experien cin g, a n d w ouldalsobe s ca led t o theamoun tthe innovationhelp s. But
th ose  a rebo th ha r d to m eas ure  realis tically . 

- -- - - - 
m cv
Did Myriad real ly c la im to ow n theg en ei tself as  t hei r in v e ntion ? If so ,
thereare al ot  o f peopl ewho'dpr oba bly  like to s ue the m for in fecti n g them
with th a t invention.It s ee m s to  me  that all M yria d  cou ld p o ss ibl y  pate nt, i sa  u n ique detection
meth od  for t hat g ene. But that  wouldn'ts t o p anyone  fro m  u s ing a differen t
det ection met h od.

But  what  interes ts me mor e about th iscas e i s t h a tthe article e x p ects  a n
Austr ali an cour t d eci sio n t obe takenas globa lju ri sp rud ence. What's t he 
lo gi c b ehind that?And i s th at  r e all y where we ' r e he ad ed ?

~ ~~db bolto n
SC O TUS  struck  down pat ent s  onna tu rally o ccurring gene  s equences t he mse lves
a n d  decided  that the "mere isolati o n" ther eof  cann ot b e patente d:
[http s:/ / en.wik ipedia .org/ wi ki/ A s s%27n _ f or _Mo le cular_Path o l og. ..](h tt ps:/ /en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/As s %27 n_for_Molecul ar_ Path o l og y_v . _M y ria d_ G ene t i cs,_Inc.#Decisi on_of_the_ Su p re me_Court)How ev er, "ar tificia l" se q uencescan be. I 'm not aw ar e of a nytest cases  that
es tablish b o undar i es  on t hediffer en cethoug h. Itw oul d belogica lto ass ume
y ou 'd haveto alter the nucleotide  seque nce t o t he extent  th a t t he result ingpeptide or  pr ote in is  no t  natu rall y  o ccu r ring(e.g .  changing aTTT c od on to
TTC w o u l dn' t suf fic e , sinc e bo th will ultimatel y  be translated  int o phe nyl a lani ne ).

Contrary t o t hi s reasonin g,  complement ary DNA_i s _ pat entabl e in t he US o n th e 
groun ds t hat  it's "no t n at u rally o cc ur r ing".So,if  you t ake th e  mRN A corresponding to 
 profit_from your_invention.

I believe the cost_and delay_of_patent litigation_is_the real problem._It's
important to identify_the critical issue before_effective change can_happen.

~~~
kbenson
My_point was when wealth protection is a tool to bolster innovation, then the
incentives are_aligned_correctly. When_people,_or_more importantly
legislators, forget that and_think the _purpose_ of patents_is to_reward for
innovation, we get some perverse incentives. In_a_perfect world, protection
would_be inversely proportional to the amount of innovation the_sector is
experiencing, and would also be_scaled to the_amount_the_innovation helps. But
those are_both hard to measure realistically.

------
mcv
Did Myriad_really claim to own the gene_itself as their invention? If so,
there are_a lot of people who'd probably_like to sue them for_infecting them
with_that invention.

It seems to me_that all Myriad_could possibly_patent, is a_unique detection
method for that gene. But_that wouldn't stop_anyone from using a different
detection method.

But_what_interests me more_about_this_case is_that the article_expects_an
Australian court_decision_to be taken as global jurisprudence._What's_the
logic behind that? And is that really_where we're headed?

~~~
dbbolton
SCOTUS struck_down_patents on naturally occurring_gene sequences themselves
and decided that_the "mere isolation" thereof cannot be_patented:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass%27n_for_Molecular_Patholog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ass%27n_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics,_Inc.#Decision_of_the_Supreme_Court)

However, "artificial"_sequences can_be. I'm not aware of any test cases that
establish boundaries on_the difference though. It would be_logical to assume
you'd have_to alter_the_nucleotide sequence to_the_extent that_the resulting
peptide or protein is not naturally_occurring (e.g._changing a TTT codon to
TTC wouldn't_suffice, since both will_ultimately_be translated into
phenylalanine).

Contrary to this reasoning,_complementary DNA _is_ patentable in the_US on the
grounds that it's_"not_naturally_occurring". So, if you take_the mRNA
corresponding to