Ordinarily, I would agree with you, but in this case, you should recall that biotech, particularly the gene sequencing companies like Celera, tanked after Clinton and Blair jointly stated that patents should not be issued on naturally occurred genes, that is, genes which have not been genetically modified in any way. It so happens that what Clinton and Blair said is an accurate statement of the law as it is on the books, but Celera, nevertheless, is attempting to patent naturally occuring gene sequences, and some patents have been issued for naturally occuring substances. This is a very controversial subject, with an enormous international focus. Pitted against Celera is the entire community of research scientists at places like NIH and universities and non-profit foundations around the world. They argue, and I agree, that Celera can't patent the human genome, they can only patent modified genes, and novel uses for the genes. In fact, the European patent office just revoked a use patent granted on the neem plant, because it has been used as an antibacterial and fungicidal agent for centuries.
The issue is very complex, and the original statement by Clinton was rather broad. So it was proper for him to try to clarify his original statement. I don't think he did a good job of that, but he's not a patent lawyer. I'm not either, but my husband has been a patent examiner for over ten years (not in biotech), and even he finds biotech patents confusing. |
