What Bilski Means For Biotech Patents 47
eldavojohn writes "Patents aren't just a software thing, and while Bilski's dismissal didn't shake the ground for software, it's certainly making waves in the biotech community. You may recall Prometheus v. Mayo, in which doctors fought a biotech startup's methodology patents. Well, medical method patents are now being reconsidered by order of the Supreme Court. Stocks of biotech startups jumped as this news broke, but questions remain on how the lower Federal Circuit court will rule when it reconsiders these cases of medical testing. It's clear the Supreme Court has 'ruled that judges should be more flexible in determining if methods, rather than objects, are eligible for patents, citing emerging technologies such as medical testing.' So Bilski may result in dire news for medical methods and testing patents."
Re:Feh (Score:4, Insightful)
I realize they said that, and it surprised the hell out of me. These are the same folks who decided corporations could donate as much as they wanted. They made bribery legal.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you think the methods would be unavailable to 'other doctors or hospitals?' The patent holders would want to maximize revenue by making the methods available to as many licensees as possible.
The number of hospitals willing to pay the licensing fee will probably be lower than the number of hospitals that would practice these methods if they weren't patented.
And remember, of course, that the US government has 'march-in rights' to any NIH-funded invention
Which only applies if the NIH funds it. My personal opinion is that nothing that has significant government funding should be eligible for a patent.