3 ms·
Why do I get the feeling SCOTUS will render a terrible decision in this case?
by beedogs 14y ago
Why do I get the feeling SCOTUS will render a terrible decision in this case?
- ars 14y agoDefine "terrible". Or is terrible anything you disagree with?
- rayiner 14y agoBecause you haven't read a SCOTUS opinion recently except the bits and pieces of Citizens United you saw on HuffPo?
- DannyBee 14y agoAs mentioned, the supreme court doesn't really take cases to uphold them. Granting cert means at least 4 justices wanted to hear the case, presumably to reverse it (it could be that they they really wanted to say something about it, but that seems like it would not really apply in this case). Monsanto did not expect the supremes to take this case.
- btilly 14y agoIf you want to be optimistic, you might look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Patho... and hope that some of them want to get a broad ruling on the patentability of genes.
- einhverfr 14y agoMyriad's an interesting case. I suspect their lawyers have their work cut out for them given Prometheus v. Mayo (recently decided). I don't see how Myriad's patents can survive Prometheus.
- DannyBee 14y agoAfter reading the argument transcripts for the Monsanto case, i'm not optimistic. I'm a supreme court bar member, so my plan was to listen to Myriad in person.
- einhverfr 14y agoActually I disagree. The court has been surprisingly good in patent cases at least since Bilsky. As recently as last term, the Supreme Court ruled that interpretations of drug test results couldn't be patented (that works heavily against Myriad in the other genetic case before the court btw). I am pretty optimistic that we will see a ruling in these two cases saying: 1. Yes, you can patent transgenic organisms, but the patent is exhausted after first sale, and 2. You can't patent genes in the abstract or what it means for a gene to be present.