The following statement from Lydersen's article is one of those artificial distinctions that give our legal system bad press: "While it is illegal to patent products of nature, laws of nature or abstract ideas, federal courts have decided that a DNA sequence that has been extracted and isolated does not qualify as a product of nature.
". Its like the defendant's claim that the person who he shot did not die from a gunshot, but the loss of blood therefore he is innocent.
For the sake of argument, even if we assume that a patent could be granted concerns remain over patenting a concept versus an actual test. One should NOT be able to patent the concept of testing for cancer, they could however develop and patent a specific test for cancer. Others should be able to develop and patent their own tests for cancer.
An additional thought. Lydersen also writes: "They say that Myriad's patents on the isolated BRCA sequences impede research and women's access to their own genetic information
So how can a private company essentially seize a private property right over information gathered from an individual? This leads to further legal convulsions. The simplest approach, don't allow patents for this type of research.
My name is Neccia Celli and I work for Newstex.com. We've reviewed Against Monopoly, and think it might be a good fit for syndication with Newstex! Our service is free. If you're interested in learning more, please send me a message at email@example.com.