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)
|