3 ms·
The decision clearly tries to support the way biotech companies make money. I know lobbying is allowed in U.S.politics, but I thought it was a felony to 'lobby'
by el_cuadrado 14y ago
The decision clearly tries to support the way biotech companies make money. I know lobbying is allowed in U.S.politics, but I thought it was a felony to 'lobby' in a court?
- dkokelley 14y agoThis is not a lobbying effort (at least not in the same way one could lobby a senator). This was a court case. In lawsuits there are almost always financial incentives in play for either party, but this doesn't automatically make it lobbying. (A common example of lobbying is company A 'wining and dining' legislatures in order to seek favorable votes or provide input on new legislation.) I disagree that the intent of the decision was to support the way biotech companies make money. The intent is to interpret the law and decide based on this interpretation. The interpretation given is that "...the compositions here are not natural products. They are the products of man, albeit following, as all materials do, laws of nature." I don't know nearly enough about genetics or molecular biology to form an opinion on whether this interpretation has merit. However, this interpretation is where arguments for or against the ruling should be founded on.
- YokoZar 14y agoNo, lawyers are not all felons.