Comments on: US Supreme Court to rule on whether practicing medicine is patentable http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Tue, 21 May 2013 20:54:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: digi_owl http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1294927 digi_owl Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:58:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1294927 "no true Scotsman"? “no true Scotsman”?

]]> By: GregS http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1294552 GregS Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:50:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1294552 I'm always astounded by this sort of thing - nearly everyone acknowledges that America's lawsuit culture is crazy, but Congress, the state legislatures, and most of the courts continue to tirelessly work to expand it. I’m always astounded by this sort of thing – nearly everyone acknowledges that America’s lawsuit culture is crazy, but Congress, the state legislatures, and most of the courts continue to tirelessly work to expand it.

]]> By: GregS http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1294548 GregS Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:42:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1294548 I hate to say it, but the federal system of separation of powers that the constitution created (where almost all government power is vested at the state level and where the federal government has jurisdiction over the few things assigned to it in the constitution) is dead, dead, dead, and it ain't coming back. The national government in Washington now has the power to regulate and legislate on everything imaginable, and the state governments have been reduced to appendages of the behemoth in Washington.  And there's no way this can ever be undone. Indeed I expect most Americans would not want it to be undone. I hate to say it, but the federal system of separation of powers that the constitution created (where almost all government power is vested at the state level and where the federal government has jurisdiction over the few things assigned to it in the constitution) is dead, dead, dead, and it ain’t coming back. The national government in Washington now has the power to regulate and legislate on everything imaginable, and the state governments have been reduced to appendages of the behemoth in Washington.  And there’s no way this can ever be undone. Indeed I expect most Americans would not want it to be undone.

]]> By: GregS http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1294535 GregS Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:32:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1294535 Where exactly do you find these legions of libertarians that are in favor of extending patents and copyrights to everything under the sun? Because I've never seen any of them. Yes, plenty of conservatives take that position, but they're no more libertarian than Barack Obama is.  For that matter, I virtually never see an "avowed libertarian" in front of a camera anywhere - what I see are big-government conservative shills that the big-government liberal shills like to pretend are libertarians. Where exactly do you find these legions of libertarians that are in favor of extending patents and copyrights to everything under the sun? Because I’ve never seen any of them. Yes, plenty of conservatives take that position, but they’re no more libertarian than Barack Obama is.  For that matter, I virtually never see an “avowed libertarian” in front of a camera anywhere – what I see are big-government conservative shills that the big-government liberal shills like to pretend are libertarians.

]]> By: Daen de Leon http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1294174 Daen de Leon Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:35:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1294174 287(c) isn't that clear-cut.  287(c)(1) states: <blockquote> With respect to a medical practitioner's performance of a medical activity that constitutes an infringement under section 271(a) or (b) of this title, the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 of this title shall not apply against the medical practitioner or against a related health care entity with respect to such medical activity.</blockquote> Fair enough.  However, 287(c)(2)(A) states: <blockquote>(2) For the purposes of this subsection: (A) the term "medical activity" means the performance of a medical or surgical procedure on a body, <b>but shall not include (i) the use of a patented machine, manufacture, or composition of matter in violation of such patent, (ii) the practice of a patented use of a composition of matter in violation of such patent, or (iii) the practice of a process in violation of a biotechnology patent.</b></blockquote> In other words, 287(c) is <i>not</i> a get-out clause; it only covers the performance of a medical or surgical procedure.  Prometheus's patent (US/20606/0216726A1) could certainly be considered to fall under the definition of "biotechnology patent" in 287(c)(2)(A)(iii), as its primary US classification is 435 (chemistry: molecular biology and microbiology) and secondary is 436 (chemistry: analytical and immunological testing), or equivalently C12Q and G01N33 in the IPC classifications. Patent doc here: http://www.google.com/patents?id=w3OkAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=Prometheus%20thioguanine%20patent&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=Prometheus%20thioguanine%20patent&f=false Classification doc here:  http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm OECD classifications for biotech patents here:  http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/sti_scoreboard-2009-en/02/08/index.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/sti_scoreboard-2009-25-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/20725345&accessItemIds=/content/book/sti_scoreboard-2009-en&mimeType=text/html 287(c) isn’t that clear-cut.  287(c)(1) states:

 With respect to a medical practitioner’s performance of a medical activity that constitutes an infringement under section 271(a) or (b) of this title, the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 of this title shall not apply against the medical practitioner or against a related health care entity with respect to such medical activity.

Fair enough.  However, 287(c)(2)(A) states:

(2) For the purposes of this subsection: (A) the term “medical activity” means the performance of a medical or surgical procedure on a body, but shall not include (i) the use of a patented machine, manufacture, or composition of matter in violation of such patent, (ii) the practice of a patented use of a composition of matter in violation of such patent, or (iii) the practice of a process in violation of a biotechnology patent.

In other words, 287(c) is not a get-out clause; it only covers the performance of a medical or surgical procedure.  Prometheus’s patent (US/20606/0216726A1) could certainly be considered to fall under the definition of “biotechnology patent” in 287(c)(2)(A)(iii), as its primary US classification is 435 (chemistry: molecular biology and microbiology) and secondary is 436 (chemistry: analytical and immunological testing), or equivalently C12Q and G01N33 in the IPC classifications.

Patent doc here:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=w3OkAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=Prometheus%20thioguanine%20patent&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=Prometheus%20thioguanine%20patent&f=false

Classification doc here: 
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm

OECD classifications for biotech patents here: 
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/sti_scoreboard-2009-en/02/08/index.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/sti_scoreboard-2009-25-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/20725345&accessItemIds=/content/book/sti_scoreboard-2009-en&mimeType=text/html

]]> By: Daen de Leon http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1294154 Daen de Leon Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:09:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1294154 Derek Lowe, who writes about drug discovery and related IP issues over at <i>In The Pipeline</i>, very pertinently says: <blockquote>what they're claiming is the process of using a blood test to decide whether or not to administer a drug. Prometheus Labs did not discovery any immune-mediated gastrointestinal diseases. They most certainly did not discover thioguanine, nor did they discover that giving thioguanine is beneficial to people who are deficient in it. No, they make a test kit, and they are claiming the process of checking a patient's blood levels (their test kit's function) in order to make a medical decision. The Mayo Clinic planned to offer a competing test kit, and Prometheus sued, and here we are.Now, think about a world in which such processes are patentable ... Prometheus seems to be claiming that the awareness of needing to test for thiopurine levels in order to decide whether to dose a patient is enough to infringe their patent. Doesn't matter if the physician doses anyone or not - just the idea of testing their blood is enough. IP rights have been infringed. Money must change hands. Ka-ching. Imagine every new bit of medical practice broken down into the smallest patentable, monetizable steps. A physician reads about a new finding that might affect clinical practice - but not so fast! Better check to see what the patent rights are. Wouldn't want to get sued for applying the scientific literature without the proper licensing fees.</blockquote> http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/12/12/dont_dose_that_patient_until_you_pay_up.php Derek Lowe, who writes about drug discovery and related IP issues over at In The Pipeline, very pertinently says:

what they’re claiming is the process of using a blood test to decide whether or not to administer a drug. Prometheus Labs did not discovery any immune-mediated gastrointestinal diseases. They most certainly did not discover thioguanine, nor did they discover that giving thioguanine is beneficial to people who are deficient in it. No, they make a test kit, and they are claiming the process of checking a patient’s blood levels (their test kit’s function) in order to make a medical decision. The Mayo Clinic planned to offer a competing test kit, and Prometheus sued, and here we are.Now, think about a world in which such processes are patentable … Prometheus seems to be claiming that the awareness of needing to test for thiopurine levels in order to decide whether to dose a patient is enough to infringe their patent. Doesn’t matter if the physician doses anyone or not – just the idea of testing their blood is enough. IP rights have been infringed. Money must change hands. Ka-ching. Imagine every new bit of medical practice broken down into the smallest patentable, monetizable steps. A physician reads about a new finding that might affect clinical practice – but not so fast! Better check to see what the patent rights are. Wouldn’t want to get sued for applying the scientific literature without the proper licensing fees.

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/12/12/dont_dose_that_patient_until_you_pay_up.php

]]> By: The Chemist http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1294109 The Chemist Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:22:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1294109 THERE IS NO FUCKING SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET! I'm sorry! I know TYCLO and all that... but seriously. This bullshit has to get fucking addressed, so I'm going to address it right now: If you have a single law- there's no such thing as a free market. <i>Any law</i>. Of any kind. Laws are a restriction of the free market no matter what they are. Can't enslave people? That's a restriction on the market. Can't kill people (implied: you can't do it for money)? That's a restriction on the market. Reasonable restrictions- yes. Necessary restrictions- absolutely.  They are still restrictions on the market. As you move your way down the list of these restrictions (which are not universal since slavery was a fact of life for a long time) you eventually hit other restrictions that are arguable. Like about whether or not you can spew toxic waste into the air. The "free market" is a complete cop out- a way ignoring the fact that the entire concept of "free" is so subjective as to be useless. The vast majority of people interested in maintaining <i>any</i> system that preserves private property are arguing in favor of a free market, they merely differ as to what constitutes freedom. THERE IS NO FUCKING SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET!

I’m sorry! I know TYCLO and all that… but seriously. This bullshit has to get fucking addressed, so I’m going to address it right now:

If you have a single law- there’s no such thing as a free market. Any law. Of any kind. Laws are a restriction of the free market no matter what they are. Can’t enslave people? That’s a restriction on the market. Can’t kill people (implied: you can’t do it for money)? That’s a restriction on the market. Reasonable restrictions- yes. Necessary restrictions- absolutely. 

They are still restrictions on the market. As you move your way down the list of these restrictions (which are not universal since slavery was a fact of life for a long time) you eventually hit other restrictions that are arguable. Like about whether or not you can spew toxic waste into the air.

The “free market” is a complete cop out- a way ignoring the fact that the entire concept of “free” is so subjective as to be useless. The vast majority of people interested in maintaining any system that preserves private property are arguing in favor of a free market, they merely differ as to what constitutes freedom.

]]> By: pKp http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293979 pKp Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:26:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293979 Yeah...you do know that (to take a random example) HIV drugs are patented and that Big Pharma has been fighting illegal generics for use in THird-World countries for a long time now, right ? Corporations DO NOT CARE about human life. They care about PROFIT. We need to kill them before they kill us all. Yeah…you do know that (to take a random example) HIV drugs are patented and that Big Pharma has been fighting illegal generics for use in THird-World countries for a long time now, right ?

Corporations DO NOT CARE about human life. They care about PROFIT. We need to kill them before they kill us all.

]]> By: loroferoz http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293939 loroferoz Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:01:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293939 Somebody seems to be really really intent on a real-life Reductio ad Absurdum. Of  patents, copyright and intellectual rights as applied and enforced today.So far, Corporatocracy in America. I wonder, Is there be enough of an open society in the USA to change things and supersede all this absurdity? Or will it eventually implode and collapse like (not) merry old Marxism and the USSR did? By the way, it's quite ironic that the suing party is called "Prometheus", of all characters. Somebody seems to be really really intent on a real-life Reductio ad Absurdum.

Of  patents, copyright and intellectual rights as applied and enforced today.So far, Corporatocracy in America. I wonder, Is there be enough of an open society in the USA to change things and supersede all this absurdity? Or will it eventually implode and collapse like (not) merry old Marxism and the USSR did?

By the way, it’s quite ironic that the suing party is called “Prometheus”, of all characters.

]]> By: elix http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293818 elix Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:33:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293818 Pardon me while I go patent the act of being an Internet troll. THEN YOU'LL ALL PAY Pardon me while I go patent the act of being an Internet troll. THEN YOU’LL ALL PAY

]]> By: Ryne Sanberg http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293805 Ryne Sanberg Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:16:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293805 You're talking about science and I'm talking about law.  Concepts like "transformative" or "law of nature" are very different in each field.   Not trying to belittle your grad school homework, I'm just guessing that your algorithms weren't the kind that end up at the Supreme Court. The  justices are discussing things like: "‘What has to be added to a law of nature to make it a patentable process?...If you put too little in the answer to that question, I believe I can make things like E=mc2 patentable.” You’re talking about science and I’m talking about law.  Concepts like “transformative” or “law of nature” are very different in each field.  

Not trying to belittle your grad school homework, I’m just guessing that your algorithms weren’t the kind that end up at the Supreme Court. The  justices are discussing things like: “‘What has to be added to a law of nature to make it a patentable process?…If you put too little in the answer to that question, I believe I can make things like E=mc2 patentable.”

]]> By: Ryne Sanberg http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293786 Ryne Sanberg Mon, 12 Dec 2011 04:44:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293786 I'm just stating the fact that physicians would be legally protected in the case being discussed.    "Unfettered access to the best possible medical information"sounds good to me! I’m just stating the fact that physicians would be legally protected in the case being discussed.   

“Unfettered access to the best possible medical information”sounds good to me!

]]> By: Antinous / Moderator http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293686 Antinous / Moderator Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:31:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293686 If you have anything new to add, feel free. Otherwise, please stop. If you have anything new to add, feel free. Otherwise, please stop.

]]> By: Ryne Sanberg http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293681 Ryne Sanberg Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:22:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293681 I'm not sure I understand what a doctor as privileged infringer means, but I do understand  that the labs may be liable. Because the US is one of two countries (along w/Australia) that allow the patenting of medical methods, Congress has provided physicians with considerable liability protection under 287(c).Some experts in the patent community reason that that the entire case should be dismissed because it has  statutory immunity from patent suit under 287(c), so I think some of the legal issues you bring up are pretty open. My point is that the BB post  and Forbes article make it seem like some doomsday scenario is upon us where doctors would be limited in their ability to practice, and would be breaking the law if they did so.   There's no risk of this, and those simply aren't the type of issues being considered in the case. I’m not sure I understand what a doctor as privileged infringer means, but I do understand  that the labs may be liable. Because the US is one of two countries (along w/Australia) that allow the patenting of medical methods, Congress has provided physicians with considerable liability protection under 287(c).Some experts in the patent community reason that that the entire case should be dismissed because it has  statutory immunity from patent suit under 287(c), so I think some of the legal issues you bring up are pretty open.

My point is that the BB post  and Forbes article make it seem like some doomsday scenario is upon us where doctors would be limited in their ability to practice, and would be breaking the law if they did so.   There’s no risk of this, and those simply aren’t the type of issues being considered in the case.

]]> By: pharmavixen http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293669 pharmavixen Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:50:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293669 But is there is the possibility of impeding medical research? Physicians may be free from the consequences of such rulings, but in order for them to practice science-based medicine effectively, they rely upon unfettered access to the best possible medical information.  But is there is the possibility of impeding medical research? Physicians may be free from the consequences of such rulings, but in order for them to practice science-based medicine effectively, they rely upon unfettered access to the best possible medical information. 

]]> By: pharmavixen http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293666 pharmavixen Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:33:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293666 I disagree, I think my example is exactly analogous. After all I would be developing a unique equation for adjusting the dosage of a drug, based on serum creatinine and population data on the blood levels of that drug for patients with varying degrees of renal function. In this case, it's dosing adjustments based on serum levels of the drug's metabolite. Same idea. I disagree, I think my example is exactly analogous. After all I would be developing a unique equation for adjusting the dosage of a drug, based on serum creatinine and population data on the blood levels of that drug for patients with varying degrees of renal function. In this case, it’s dosing adjustments based on serum levels of the drug’s metabolite. Same idea.

]]> By: Another Kevin http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293648 Another Kevin Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:59:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293648 The problem is that the blood tests in question are not ordinarily performed in the doctor's office. Rather, the samples are generally sent to a contract laboratory for analysis. The laboratory does not enjoy the 35 USC 287 (c) protections. It's neither [2 (B)] a natural person licensed to practice medicine in a State, nor [2 (C)] the natural person's employer.  So, while the doctor cannot be sued for interpreting the test, the laboratory can and will be sued for providing the test results for interpretation. And the fact that the doctor is immune to suit for direct infringement may not imply that the laboratory might still be guilty of contributory infringement - one of the points at suit is that the doctor may still be an infringer; merely a privileged one. The problem is that the blood tests in question are not ordinarily performed in the doctor’s office. Rather, the samples are generally sent to a contract laboratory for analysis. The laboratory does not enjoy the 35 USC 287 (c) protections. It’s neither [2 (B)] a natural person licensed to practice medicine in a State, nor [2 (C)] the natural person’s employer.  So, while the doctor cannot be sued for interpreting the test, the laboratory can and will be sued for providing the test results for interpretation. And the fact that the doctor is immune to suit for direct infringement may not imply that the laboratory might still be guilty of contributory infringement – one of the points at suit is that the doctor may still be an infringer; merely a privileged one.

]]> By: Ryne Sanberg http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293578 Ryne Sanberg Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:53:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293578 So the article title is wrong and misleading?  Physicians and patent/health attorneys are well aware that you can't enforce patents against physicians.  While the Forbes (not valid source for legal analysis) article doesn't mention this, all the legal articles and blogs do. I'm shocked BB got this so wrong. Maybe  they could use a fact checker / research assistant. It's like media articles that twist a non-conlusive medical study into "green jelly beans cause cancer!" type of thing. So the article title is wrong and misleading?  Physicians and patent/health attorneys are well aware that you can’t enforce patents against physicians.  While the Forbes (not valid source for legal analysis) article doesn’t mention this, all the legal articles and blogs do.

I’m shocked BB got this so wrong. Maybe  they could use a fact checker / research assistant. It’s like media articles that twist a non-conlusive medical study into “green jelly beans cause cancer!” type of thing.

]]> By: Ryne Sanberg http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293572 Ryne Sanberg Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:36:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293572 Why would they have to do that?  They can just keep treating patients as usual, seeing how this case would have no effect on practicing physicians.   Why would they have to do that?  They can just keep treating patients as usual, seeing how this case would have no effect on practicing physicians.  

]]> By: Ryne Sanberg http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293569 Ryne Sanberg Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:32:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293569 " it will make doctors liable as patent infringers merely for practicing medicine" What!?  Not only sensational, but completely false.  It's common knowledge that federal law protects doctors from any kind of patent infringement in treating patients.  This kind of misguided armchair legal analysis seems so out of place here...  Please read 35 U.S.C. 287(c) “ it will make doctors liable as patent infringers merely for practicing medicine”

What!?  Not only sensational, but completely false.  It’s common knowledge that federal law protects doctors from any kind of patent infringement in treating patients.  This kind of misguided armchair legal analysis seems so out of place here… 

Please read 35 U.S.C. 287(c)

]]> By: Ryne Sanberg http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293565 Ryne Sanberg Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:25:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293565  Would your algorithm be adequate enough to transform a law of nature into an application of a law of nature? Does it preempt the use of a law of nature? Is it novel? Is it obvious? Is it transformative?  This case has no application to the  simple dosing scenerio you mention.  It's more complex and interesting than that.    Would your algorithm be adequate enough to transform a law of nature into an application of a law of nature? Does it preempt the use of a law of nature? Is it novel? Is it obvious? Is it transformative?  This case has no application to the  simple dosing scenerio you mention.  It’s more complex and interesting than that.  

]]> By: pharmavixen http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293468 pharmavixen Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:09:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293468 When I was studying for a doctor of pharmacy degree, one of the assignments in the pharmacokinetics course was to develop an equation for dosing adjustments in patients with kidney failure, using data from medical literature on the assigned drugs. Would this exercise be possible if dosing algorithms were patentable? When I was studying for a doctor of pharmacy degree, one of the assignments in the pharmacokinetics course was to develop an equation for dosing adjustments in patients with kidney failure, using data from medical literature on the assigned drugs. Would this exercise be possible if dosing algorithms were patentable?

]]> By: s2redux http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293467 s2redux Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:03:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293467 Huh. Apparently the Constitution <i>is</i> a suicide pact. Who knew? Huh. Apparently the Constitution is a suicide pact. Who knew?

]]> By: kaidaigoji http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293448 kaidaigoji Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:25:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293448 Funny - I was reading about this case in the Minneapolis Star this weekend.  They quoted Roberts saying something like, "I had an idea - you put wood on a grate, heat it, and get fire.  I can patent this?"  From what I've seen, the justices are not close to agreeing but find this kind of patent ludicrous. Funny – I was reading about this case in the Minneapolis Star this weekend.  They quoted Roberts saying something like, “I had an idea – you put wood on a grate, heat it, and get fire.  I can patent this?”  From what I’ve seen, the justices are not close to agreeing but find this kind of patent ludicrous.

]]> By: TFox http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293446 TFox Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:22:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293446 You are correct. Medical procedures have always been patentable, but US law prevents enforcing them against physicians. Some of the history is covered here: http://www.patenteducation.com/images/200902_Limited_Monopoly_-_Patenting_Surgical_Procedures.pdf You are correct. Medical procedures have always been patentable, but US law prevents enforcing them against physicians. Some of the history is covered here:
http://www.patenteducation.com/images/200902_Limited_Monopoly_-_Patenting_Surgical_Procedures.pdf

]]> By: EvilSpirit http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293431 EvilSpirit Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:46:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293431 What is clear to *me* is that according to the Constitution, the Federal government can issue patents on pretty much any invention it wants.  And that you just made up that other stuff. What is clear to *me* is that according to the Constitution, the Federal government can issue patents on pretty much any invention it wants.  And that you just made up that other stuff.

]]> By: CS http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293428 CS Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:29:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293428 Yes, because "unfettered capitalism" is all about government-granted monopolies... The whole purpose of patents and copyright is to fetter pure capitalism through government regulation, supposedly for the good of the collective. Yes, because “unfettered capitalism” is all about government-granted monopolies…

The whole purpose of patents and copyright is to fetter pure capitalism through government regulation, supposedly for the good of the collective.

]]> By: awjt http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293421 awjt Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:39:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293421 I've already patented getting patents for suing people for violating patents.  Sorry, but you can license this technology from me for a fee. I’ve already patented getting patents for suing people for violating patents.  Sorry, but you can license this technology from me for a fee.

]]> By: Rob http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293407 Rob Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:54:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293407 Will become? Were have you been? Will become?
Were have you been?

]]> By: digi_owl http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-wh.html#comment-1293398 digi_owl Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:27:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=133747#comment-1293398 Then how the fuck does seem that every time there is a avowed libertarian in front of a camera somewhere, the very opposite seems to be the goal? Then how the fuck does seem that every time there is a avowed libertarian in front of a camera somewhere, the very opposite seems to be the goal?

]]>