Law

A thought for the weekend

A ways back I asked Denise if a gene as itself could be the object of a patent. She helpfully pointed to the USPTO's guidelines and said, roughly, "yes."

The ridiculousness of this may not be self-evident.

Take the case of 2 + 2 = 4. The first part is the method, the process for deriving the result. But you can reach the result through a number of different methods.

3 + 1 = 4
5 - 1 = 4
8 / 2 = 4
2 x 2 = 4

Each of those methods reaches the same result. If I were a better mathematician, I would conjure another, more complex method to reach the same result. Yet the result would still be 4.

In the case of a gene, both the method and the gene are patentable. Suppose someone were to perfect a better method for isolating that same gene. Because the gene, as itself, is patented, the inventor of the better method, having built on the prior art of the first method, that art being the mere knowledge of the existence of the gene, would violate the first patent and owe licensing fees to the inventor of the first patent.

Does this not void the intent of the patent system? Is my understanding entirely incorrect?

6:25:34 PM # Google It!
categories: Law

Introverts

"Saying that other sites can't link to your site is like being a member of a community and asking people not to talk to you."
— Lautrup-Larsen, quoted in "Deep Linking Returns to Surface," by Michelle Delio, Wired, April 18, 2002

The link there is to the second page of the story. The quote is in the last paragraph. If I could link directly to that graf, I would. Why? Because it's an exact citation. "Well, it's over yonder, but I can't tell you too exactly."

2:07:29 PM # Google It!
categories: Industry, Law, Media