> I'm still not convinced that this form of protectionism is the only avenue to innovation. Protections of inventions (as loose as the term "invention" might b

> I'm still not convinced that this form of protectionism is the only avenue to innovation. Protections of inventions (as loose as the term "invention" might be) isn't the only avenue to innovation, but it is an avenue. There is always going to be a pull between free/open and paid/private. It's a good thing that multiple avenues exist, because some public-good innovations may happen under one regime but not the other. Also, I take issue with the terms of the "it should be free" conversation here. The patent isn't for the gene: the company does not hold the rights to your DNA. The patent is for the discovery of it's link to cancer. In this exact circumstance, I question how long it would take for this gene to be identified as a causal-link to breast cancer if there was not the bait of a financial windfall. Is there a smoking gun that shows this company beat out a public institution to this discovery?