A study conducted by Thomas Kepler, Colin Crossman, and Robert Cook-Deegan of Duke University found the patent in question "surprisingly broad" and that "if enf

A study conducted by Thomas Kepler, Colin Crossman, and Robert Cook-Deegan of Duke University found the patent in question "surprisingly broad" and that "if enforced [the patent] would have substantial implications for medical practice and scientific research" [1]. As a result the patent ended up stifling innovation, violating the legal justification for patents. The arguments you provide may justify the existence of some patents, but certainly not this one. [1] http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE62F5YR20100316 http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE62F5YR20100316