> Depending on the judge, invalidating gene patents isn't that far away from invalidating the whole concept of software patents. How so? The judge said "you c

> Depending on the judge, invalidating gene patents isn't that far away from invalidating the whole concept of software patents. How so? The judge said "you can't patent discoveries". However, you can patent the use of discoveries to do something useful. That's why they tried to claim "if you suppress this gene, good things happen". The problem is that they didn't say anything useful about how to suppress said gene. You can't patent chemistry or chemical compounds. However, you can patent the use of a chemical compound to do something specific which you actually claim. For example, the Viagra patent probably doesn't cover that compound's use in a floor wax. Similarly, you can't patent a theorem, but you can patent the use of a theorem to do something specific. > In the mean time - yay! for the judge that said that the biological structures and processes that make me alive aren't owned by anybody. However, certain things done with some of those structures are very much patentable.