Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Pharmaceutical Patents

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.

Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.

current posts | more recent posts



A better title would have been "Is this the beginning of the end of gene patenting.?" I assume there will be an appeal to the CAFC. If the CAFC rules against the patent holder, then there will likely be a shot with the Supreme Court. Because this issue is fairly high profile I suspect this case might be fast-tracked. The appeal has to come fairly soon, so watch for the announcement.

Even if this is the beginning of the end for gene patents, the methodologies used to find genes will still remain patentable.

In defense of Myriad Genetics, they spent lots of $$ to discover these genes and their use in cancer therapy, so if you are going to have a patent system to reward incurring sunk costs, then you should give them the patents. That being said, if you dont feel that patents are socially desirable then get rid of the entire system, not just parts of it.
@Paul, so they sunk a lot of money into research, well too bad. We have, at least in theory, a capitalistic system. Risk money and maybe you will be rewarded. People and corporations invest in a lot of things, some make money and some lose money. That's the breaks.

Patents are meant to give a LIMITED monopoly over an invention, not for discovering things. We unfortunately seem to live in a society of ever expansive "rights", patents and copyright being perceived, now, as a right rather than a privilege.


Based on my understanding of the Myriad patent, they did in fact discover the genes. They did not invent them. Understanding that those genes are associated with breast cancer is the equivalent of understanding that viruses cause influenza. Congratulations to Myriad for learning that. But, they do not deserve a patent under the present system.


Steve is not talking about getting rid of parts of the patent system. He is talking about the fact that the present system does not reward "discovery." "Discover" is, by law, excluded from patentability. Thus, calculus, geometry, physics, quantum mechanics, etc., are all non-patentable because they are not inventions, but creations that explain the world around us. They are excluded, by law, from being patentable.

We'll see later, where it will lead us, we can do that with custom term papers help
Your comments do not make any sense, Sandie.
i'm sure that Term Papers can open smth new for Myriad Genetics!
i'm sure that Term Papers can open smth new for Myriad Genetics!

current posts | more recent posts

Submit Comment

Blog Post


Email (optional):

Your Humanity:

Prove you are human by retyping the anti-spam code.
For example if the code is unodosthreefour,
type 1234 in the textbox below.

Anti-spam Code



Most Recent Comments

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime It is one of the finest websites I have stumbled upon. It is not only well developed, but has good

Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry

Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default

Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without

Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do

Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous

Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,

What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic

Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the

Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples

Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you

Bonfire of the Missalettes!

Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since