Sure. I'd even go on to say that the latter isn't much different, in principle, than granting Eli Lilly a monopoly on pills that, by a certain chemical action,

Sure. I'd even go on to say that the latter isn't much different, in principle, than granting Eli Lilly a monopoly on pills that, by a certain chemical action, boost serotonin levels in the brain. Which is not to say that there might not be sensible reasons for society to favor protection of one over the other. In the words[1] of Oliver Wendell Holmes, "the life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." Fortunately for the industry, today's ruling was clearly written by a judge well-versed in both. [1] http://books.google.com/books?id=xXouAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1 http://books.google.com/books?id=xXouAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1 (well worth reading in context)