> If I'm correct, this is about patenting isolated genes, right? No. Myriad claims they transformed the gene into something else in the process of isolating it

> If I'm correct, this is about patenting isolated genes, right? No. Myriad claims they transformed the gene into something else in the process of isolating it. The court accepted this claim. So the precedent set here is not that isolated genes can be patented, but rather about what the threshold is for transformation such that something can be considered patentable. (I'm totally against the decision btw, but I think it's important this distinction is understood).