Fyi ... (01)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/business/30drug.html (02)
"Reversing a longstanding policy, the federal government said on Friday
that human and other genes should not be eligible for patents because
they are part of nature. The new position could have a huge impact on
medicine and on the biotechnology industry. ...." (03)
Yes! ... finally ... but the article ended in a somewhat trouble note, (04)
" ... While the government took the plaintiffs� side on the issue of
isolated DNA, it sided with Myriad on patentability of manipulated DNA. (05)
Myriad and the plaintiffs did not comment on the government�s brief by
deadline for this article. (06)
Mr. Reines, the attorney, who is with the firm of Weil Gotshal & Manges
and is not involved in the main part of the Myriad case, said he thought
the Patent Office opposed the new position but was overruled by other
agencies. A hint is that no lawyer from the Patent Office was listed on
the brief" (07)
=== (08)
The legal case of patentability of genes should provide some good
learning toward our making a case for the patentability of ontologies. (09)
By the way, we had better get our act together if we want to properly
inform the powers-to-be on whether or not ontologies should be patentable. (010)
... (mea culpa//) I still owe everyone a recap and a summary of the next
steps after our recent OOR-IPR sessions
(http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_IPR).
That's fairly high on my priority list! (011)
Regards. =ppy
-- (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (013)
|