Skip to main content

View Diary: Patenting Human Genes: Case Reaches Supreme Court (13 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Suing the patent holder would do no good... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, ScienceMom, Cassandra Waites

    ...because the patents were validly issued.  There would be no cause of action (likely not even an antitrust action).

    The sequences, as patented, did not exist in nature before the inventors discovered them and identified their usefulness.  They therefore should be patentable.

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:00:16 AM PDT

    •  Two aspects (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr Robert, Lujane

      First, on whether or not a previously issued patent can be overturned by court ruling: A federal judge did previously make a ruling against the patents.  At least that federal judge believed this was his legal right.

      Second, can a patient sue a gene patent holder? I'm no legal expert, but our laws need to be changed if a manufacturer of a hazardous product can't be sued because there is a patent on the hazardous product.  I would think if a patent doesn't protect the maker of a hazardous product, a patent wouldn't protect the holder of a gene patent.

      "We all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free capitalism for the poor." - Martin Luther King Jr.

      by workingwords on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:19:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A patient who has suffered real economic harm (0+ / 0-)

        can sue if they have been injured by a therapy. They can sue the treating physician, the hospital, and the company that makes and sells the therapy, regardless of patent status, unless the patient consent clearly outlines the injury as a potential risk factor.

        Unless someone is injured, and suffers and economic loss, it is very difficult to successfully sue a diagnostic provider unless an inaccurate diagnosis causes injury and economic harm.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:39:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That is incorrect (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      workingwords

      The patented sequences doexist in nature.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (140)
  • Community (59)
  • 2016 (39)
  • Environment (38)
  • Republicans (37)
  • Elections (32)
  • Bernie Sanders (32)
  • Culture (31)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Media (25)
  • Spam (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • GOP (22)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site