3 ms·

Ouch, what a mishmash of the law goin' on here. ACLU v myriad wasn't about patentable second use of patented products, nor was it about obviousness over the st

Ouch, what a mishmash of the law goin' on here. ACLU v myriad wasn't about patentable second use of patented products, nor was it about obviousness over the state of the art (the natural world is not considered to be in the state of the art): it was about novelty - the natural DNA in your cells was, in the judge's view, still the same substance (even in cDNA form and artificially synthesised) as the chemical in Myriad's 'invention' (since for him, function was crucial not form - its form might be altered and origin be synthetic, its function is the same - to carry information - and that information is the same).

anamax 17y ago
> it was about novelty - the natural DNA in your cells was, in the judge's view Except that the judge said that it wasn't. The judge said that they can't patent discovering a gene - they can only patent doing something new with or to said gene. That's why the applicants wrote the claim the way that they did - they claimed suppression of said gene to accomplish something. The problem with that claim is that they didn't invent a means of suppression. They assumed one, hence they didn't actually have an invention, which is what the judge actually wrote.