Peter et al,
I don't find the end of this article troubling at all. It seems to me
that Justice has taken the position that genes are patentable when
"something new" has altered their biological signifigance--be these
"man-made" mutations or their placement in a new "non-naturally"
occuring biological context.
I also think the same holss true for taxonomies and especially
ontologies. Here it is the placement of specific words into a new
structured context where these words take on specific meaning(s) that
are a consequence of this contrived context. Similarly, the
ontology/taxonomy as a whole takes on new meaning as a result of the
unique combination of its components.
The fact that the words may be derive from a preexisting vocabulary
should be of no more consequence than the copyrightability of an
artist's collage that uses derivations of other works to produce their
own unique work/message...but not being an attorney, I cannot say
exactly what these consequences are.
Furthermore, I think that the engineering of certain ontologies may
warant a represention of a signifigant work of invention (depending on
the uniqueness and non-obvious nature of these engineered
components)--which would indeed be separate from the taxonomy from
which the ontology is derived. (01)
On 10/30/10, Peter Yim <yimpp1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Fyi ...
> "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. ...."
> Yes! ... finally ... but the article ended in a somewhat trouble note,
> " ... While the government took the plaintiffs’ side on the issue of
> isolated DNA, it sided with Myriad on patentability of manipulated DNA.
> Myriad and the plaintiffs did not comment on the government’s brief by
> deadline for this article.
> 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"
> The legal case of patentability of genes should provide some good
> learning toward our making a case for the patentability of ontologies.
> 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.
> ... (mea culpa//) I still owe everyone a recap and a summary of the next
> steps after our recent OOR-IPR sessions
> That's fairly high on my priority list!
> Regards. =ppy
> 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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (03)