4 ms·

The problem with their argument is that pulling out genes in large quantity from an isolated sample is pretty damn easy. Its molecular biology 101; we clone gen

The problem with their argument is that pulling out genes in large quantity from an isolated sample is pretty damn easy. Its molecular biology 101; we clone genes all kinds of genes all the time. If you read their technical spec (http://www.myriad.com/lib/technical-specifications/BRACAnalysis-Technical-Specifications.pdf http://www.myriad.com/lib/technical-specifications/BRACAnaly...) its obvious that while they have the process very streamlined, they're doing nothing fundamentally differently than any other lab would do if Myriad didn't hold these patents. PCR and dye labeling sequencing methods are commonly used tools; the idea that Myriad has come up with anything novel is absurd.

anigbrowl 14y ago
It's easy now; I don't think it was all that easy back in 1994 when they first sequenced BRCA-1 or when they first began work on it back around 1988.
- WildUtah 14y ago
  I did it in an undergrad lab class in 1994. It took some fancy equipment, target data from published reports on particular sequences, appropriate cells, salts, and enzymes. And it took me about 25 lab hours to get it right. But it wasn't hard. An undergrad could do it. Maybe not in 1988, though. I was in junior high then.
- thronemonkey 14y ago
  It was easy even then. PCR and Sanger sequencing have been in wide use for a long time. Yes, Myriad did do a lot of streamlining and optimizing, but everything they did was with preexisting technologies. There's nothing novel or innovative at all—they developed a very efficient analysis pipeline, but that's not something anyone should ever be awarded a patent for.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    In that case, why haven't their legal antagonists built their case around a straightforward prior art argument, instead of amking normative arguments about the patentability of human DNA?
    - thronemonkey 14y ago
      Not sure, might have something to do with the ACLU/AMP wanting to set a wide reaching precedent that patents of endogenous DNA sequences are not ok? They won't just want to win the single case, they want to change the wider legal landscape concerning patents and biological science.

anigbrowl 14y ago

It's easy now; I don't think it was all that easy back in 1994 when they first sequenced BRCA-1 or when they first began work on it back around 1988.

WildUtah 14y ago
I did it in an undergrad lab class in 1994. It took some fancy equipment, target data from published reports on particular sequences, appropriate cells, salts, and enzymes. And it took me about 25 lab hours to get it right. But it wasn't hard. An undergrad could do it. Maybe not in 1988, though. I was in junior high then.
thronemonkey 14y ago
It was easy even then. PCR and Sanger sequencing have been in wide use for a long time. Yes, Myriad did do a lot of streamlining and optimizing, but everything they did was with preexisting technologies. There's nothing novel or innovative at all—they developed a very efficient analysis pipeline, but that's not something anyone should ever be awarded a patent for.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  In that case, why haven't their legal antagonists built their case around a straightforward prior art argument, instead of amking normative arguments about the patentability of human DNA?
  - thronemonkey 14y ago
    Not sure, might have something to do with the ACLU/AMP wanting to set a wide reaching precedent that patents of endogenous DNA sequences are not ok? They won't just want to win the single case, they want to change the wider legal landscape concerning patents and biological science.