Supreme Court Legitimizing Medical Patents?

RobinEggs writes "A case before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday addressed the legality of medical patents. From the article: 'The case focuses on a patent that covers the concept of adjusting the dosage of a drug, thiopurine, based on the concentration of a particular chemical (called a metabolite) in the patient's blood. The patent does not cover the drug itself—that patent expired years ago—nor does it cover any specific machine or procedure for measuring the metabolite level. Rather, it covers the idea that particular levels of the chemical "indicate a need" to raise or lower the drug dosage. The patent holder, Prometheus Labs, offers a thiopurine testing product. It sued the Mayo Clinic when the latter announced it would offer its own, competing thiopurine test. But Prometheus claims much more than its specific testing process. It claims a physician administering thiopurine to a patient can infringe its patent merely by being aware of the scientific correlation disclosed in the patent—even if the doctor doesn't act on the patent's recommendations.'"

The stupid! It hurts!

[Chas]

Sorry Mr. Patient. While I know exactly what's wrong with you, the Medi-Jackass Inc. will sue me into oblivion if I prescribe the proper treatment to you!
No, I can't tell you either. They'd sue me into oblivion TWICE, then go after you too.

Un-fucking believable.

All I can hope is that medical establishments EVERYWHERE (including insurance companies) tell these people to fuck the hell off and stonewall them into bankruptcy while blacklisting every product and service they use to hasten the process.

Jumping the gun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they heard the case doesn't mean "Supreme Court Legitimizing Medical Patents".

That's a troll headline.

This is a basic intelligence test for SCOTUS

[WOOFYGOOFY]

This is as basic as it gets. Can companies patent the use of facts? Let's see if they can get this right. If they do, at least we know there's an upper limit to their ignorance. If they can't , then it's the end of innovation in the US and the beginning of a stampede of smart, motivated people who want to do Good Things out of the US and into the EU or elsewhere. It's just that simple. Either we're free to innovate in this country, or we leave our country in favor of a land that offers more freedom and opportunity. Just like our forefathers did.

Re:The stupid! It hurts!

[antido]

All I can hope is that medical establishments EVERYWHERE (including insurance companies) tell these people to fuck the hell off and stonewall them into bankruptcy while blacklisting every product and service they use to hasten the process.

My hope is with you, buddy. Except I fear that whenever money is involved, ethics, humanitarianism and other socially awesome things go out the window.

Self defeating arguments?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know nothing about the US patent system - but my first thought on reading this was as follows.
Proper administration of the drug is supposed to violate the patent.
The drug in question is out of patent... (for years)
Does this mean that there was an extended prior where the drug was not able to be administered correctly to start with, or does their argument cause the 'method' patent to be invalid on grounds of prior art which must have existed in order for the drug to be administrated properly in the first place.

Legal fees

[tepples]

There are no damages for infringement by a medical practitioner of a medical activity.

That doesn't mean the doctor won't have a pay a lawyer to convince a judge that 35 USC 287(c)(1) applies.

Re:This is a basic intelligence test for SCOTUS

[Anonymous Coward]

This is as basic as it gets. Can companies patent the use of facts? Let's see if they can get this right. If they do, at least we know there's an upper limit to their ignorance.

Yes, clearly "Woofy Goofy" knows more about the law than the Supreme Court.

Justices in the supreme court ARE POLITICAL appointees.
What makes you think they are the best the country has to offer ?
Get a reality check please.

Re:This is a basic intelligence test for SCOTUS

[ChrisMP1]

Instead of an insult, you could add to the discussion by pointing out where he was wrong and explaining what is correct. Or, if you don't know, you could just not speak, which will still give a higher net contribution to the conversation.

Re:Shenanigans!! All your thought are belong to us

[devjoe]

It will only stop when somebody attempts to apply the same strategy to the legal profession. Then, with any luck, one of two things will happen:

1. 1. The lawyers, judges, and Congress will realize that the entire government will grind to a halt if that strategy is allowed, so they will reject the strategy, and finally come to realize why this is such a problem in other areas, and finally fix it.
2. 2. It succeeds, and everything does grind to a halt until Congress passes a massive overhaul to change it all (making it just retroactive enough to negate all patent lawsuits against their own overhaul.)

Re:Shenanigans!! All your thought are belong to us

[Niedi]

or 3. The lawyers, judges, and Congress will realize that the entire government will grind to a halt if that strategy is allowed, so they will reject the strategy, completely failing to realize that this is also a problem in other areas.

Re:This is a basic intelligence test for SCOTUS

[WOOFYGOOFY]

I'm sorry what aspect of law would you be referring to? The law the Supreme Court makes? By that measure, they're always right, irrespective of how they decide an issue. In logic, we call that a "tautology"

The aspect of the law I am referring to is its "justness" and "advisability". The extension of patent "rights" into methods and software is not only inadvisable, but also unjust .

In fact, another source of some authority on US law, the U.S. Constitution states that patents will be granted for the purpose of ADVANCING the useful arts and sciences. Failing that, no patent is deserving. Advancing the useful arts and sciences is not synonymous with advancing the material welfare of corporations or individuals, despite what Ayn Rand claims.

You talk as though citizens whose rights and livelihoods are going to be directly affected by their own judiciary's decisions ought to somehow stand meekly aside and permit the "experts" in law decide what the law shall be.

I have two words for you: Dred Scott.

Actually, your "tut tut" attitude might make some sense if the law in question was only concerned with measurable facts , like say theoretical physics., or the effect of excess carbon on the planet's temperature.

But it makes exactly zero sense when the subject matter is what a people shall declare a normative law- which will rule them all- shall be.

Maybe you're an IP lawyer. Maybe you're a lobbyist. Maybe your a bureaucrat. Maybe you're a patent holder. Really, those are the only categories of people I know of who would take the attitude that democracy should be a spectator sport and the people should not involve themselves, much less get worked up about, the morality or advisability of their own laws.

Re:The stupid! It hurts!

[rnturn]

It's bad enough that my family physician has to employ a couple of people whose sole job is to deal with the insurance companies all day long. Now it seems, if this idea is approved by the Supreme Court, they'll need to have a patent attorney on retainer to make sure they don't run afoul of some pharmaceutical company who found that a drug's effectiveness can actually be measured.

I thought it was supposed to be a bad idea to have the government getting between the doctor and the patient. If this isn't government getting between me and my doctor, I sure as hell don't know what is.

Re:Legal fees

[StikyPad]

Which is, frankly, stupid. ALL living things are Genetically Modified Organisms, it's just that the mechanism of modification is usually either more random (natural evolution), or takes longer (breeding and hybridization, AKA ranching and farming). Manipulating genes directly is both more efficient and more effective. If it wasn't, farmers wouldn't buy the seed.

Now it's true that we don't really know the extent of the role that the genetics of our food supply plays in our health, but that's just as true for non-GMO/organic foodstuff as it is for GMO. It's not like we have much in the way of conclusive evidence or scientific consensus that any particular food is healthy or unhealthy, with the obvious exception of substances that are acutely toxic. It's natural to be wary of things that are new and unknown, but the reality is that the existing things (foods) are unknown in this case, except for the fact that we don't generally keel over dead from eating them. And on top of that, you never know when you might be getting something new anyway thanks to spontaneous genetic mutations.

I'm not saying that food and nutrition shouldn't continue to be studied, certainly they should, but dismissing a food source out of hand because it's "GMO" is simply alarmist.

Re:Legal fees

[s73v3r]

The idea that there can exist "unlicensed genetic material" is absurd on it's face.

Re:The stupid! It hurts!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

The major cost of testing a new compound is to prove the drug is safe, i.e doesn't kill the patient, or has any other nasty side effects. Whether it actually does any good is almost left as an afterthought. Since (almost) all of that should be well established by the time someone comes up with an idea for a second use, then no, they should't be able to get a God damned patent for using the same drug for something new. They can got a patent for the drug, that's it.