< legal aspects of genomics to be the single biggest risk>
I thought it was interesting that the WSJ article (Genome, 3/4/99) today mentioned that the "consortium" of big pharma being set up to compete with INCY did NOT argue for public domain genes or sequences... in fact was very specific that gene discoveries would still be patentable. It was simply the map that they wanted for everyone to use... this makes no sense to me, who's road map would you rather use, Rand McNally, or some U.S. Government road map?
As for genes being patentable, it seems to me this fight is way down the road, and probably a long term ongoing process. Wonder how relevant other "knowledge patent" issues are here? Software is just code? Music is just notes arranged in special ways? Brand Names are just words? What about Genes? Is that like a patent on "hair" or "blood", or is it a patent on "a description for hair", for example. Certainly these patents met certain criteria at the patent office, right? Now that they are granted they must be valid pending a supreme court battle I imagine. Maybe it'll be like the arts (music, etc), an ongoing evolution with fights over rights etc etc.?
Anyway just contemplating... please join in anyone. I'm beginning to realize that even a patent expert, although helpful in understanding the process, may not be as helpful as we think. This is probably an issue needing common sense and interpretation of the science, not the law.
DAK
Any thoughts on this subject? In the meantime I've talked myself into buying more, it could be years before the issue becomes an issue, and forever to overturn the governments postion? :) |
