Supreme Court Declines To Consider Medical Diagnostic Patents (bloomberg.com) 30
The U.S. Supreme Court stayed out of the debate over what types of medical diagnostic tests can be patented, leaving in legal limbo companies that discover ways to diagnose and treat diseases based on patients' unique characteristics. From a report: The justices rejected an appeal by Quest Diagnostics's Athena unit that sought to restore its patent for a test to detect the presence of an autoimmune disease. A lower court had ruled in favor of the nonprofit Mayo Clinic that the test wasn't eligible for a patent because it merely covered a natural law -- the correlation between the presence of an antibody and the disease. Justices on Monday also rejected appeals to clarify the rules regarding software patents. The Supreme Court's action leaves it to Congress to resolve an issue that's created a legal gray area for such discoveries.
Now that is settled. (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps Quest can focus on proving proper HL7 integration data over it partners. So doctors can get the results in their systems faster and more accurately.
Maybe if (Score:1)
They didn't invent anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents are for inventions, new ways of doing things.
Quest didn't invent anything. The courts saw that, killed the patent. Case closed.
More specifically, the law is you can't patent "the laws of nature, including the laws of physics of of mathematics". This is because inventions must be NEW and the laws of nature are not new.
Quest tried to patent "if you have this antibody, you might have this disease". That's not new - that statement was true 2,000 years ago.
Note you CAN patent a newly invented type of elevator, which USES the laws of physics, specifically gravity. You can't patent gravity, because gravity isn't a new invention. By the same token, you can't patent mathematical laws such as the commutative law of multiplication. You CAN patent a new invention which uses math in a new and useful way to do something new.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a win for the people who want their to be less people on the earth and to let people die unnecessary deaths.
To the contrary: this ruling doesn't prevent them from using this process, but rather, it prevents them from withholding it from other companies and/or ransoming it via licensing fees. So the end result is actually the opposite of your flippant observation.
Finally, what they're supposed to do (Score:3, Insightful)
The Supreme Court's action leaves it to Congress to resolve an issue that's created a legal gray area for such discoveries.
Amazing; this makes a nice change that they didn't discover a new right in the Constitution and order the states to follow it.
What was the deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
A procedure to detect the presence of an antibody is patentable, but my understanding is that what Quest was saying is that simply making the conclusion that âoeoh, you have this antibody in you therefore you have a particular medical conditionâ is patentable.
If thatâ(TM)s the case I think that is idiotic. How the hell do you even enforce that? Would they need to prevent testing for the antibody or at least get paid each time on account for the fact that it will inevitably lead to infringing on their âoeintellectual propertyâ?
Re: (Score:2)
I say: Prison, for even attempting to. (Score:2, Insightful)
If I seek to withhold a way in which anyone could tell you need medical treatment or you will suffer a great deal and/or die,
how is that any different from grievous bodily harm or manslaughter/murder?
I don't think it matters if you drown somebody to death, or don't open hatch right in front of you by which he could save himself from drowning to death. ... which in this case, it isn't, ... what monster would not at least try?
Even if opening the hatch would be hard
Only a psychopath.
Some people go to Prison / jail to get medical tre (Score:2, Troll)
Some people go to Prison / jail to get medical treatment under the US system.
Some things should be 'not-for-profit' (Score:2, Interesting)
One works, one doesn't. Shkreli is in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
The VAST majority of medical breakthroughs over the last hundred years have come from the United States, where your billion dollar investment in researching all different possibilities just might pay off.
There are a LOT of countries where you can't "make a profit" on medicine (which mostly means recouping your research expenses from that didn't work out). Those countries produce approximately zero new medical research.
You want to change it from "you can buy the new med for $50 until the patent runs out, then it's $5" to "the meds are always $5". Your suggestion doesn't make that happen, though. Your suggestion is in place in many countries, lots of places to is no profit in medical research, and the result is there is no new medicine. Nobody can get it at any price. The actual options are:
A. The newest meds cost $50 for the first few years they are on the market, $5 thereafter (US system)
B. There are no new meds, at any price, because nobody is going to hand over their retirement savings for pharmaceutical research with no possibility that it'll come back and let them retire like any other investment would
Yeah Martin Shkreli is an asshole. And he's in prison, where he belongs.
Re: (Score:3)
The VAST majority of medical breakthroughs over the last hundred years have come from the United States, where your billion dollar investment in researching all different possibilities just might pay off.
Not true. Sulfa drugs - Germany, penicillin - UK, insulin - Canada, beta blockers - UK, ...
The US is really distinguished in the area of cancer drugs.
One, one, one, 13,548 (Score:2)
That's one for Germany, one for the UK, one for Canada, 13,538 for the US. The wins by a nose.
About half of all new pharmaceuticals in the world are invented in one country - the US. The UK is the second leading country, though far behind the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you aware that not all medical innovation is brand new pharmaceuticals? In fact even just within pharmaceuticals alone, a large percentage (the majority?) of research is new uses for existing meds.
Not true (Score:3)
The vast majority of medical breakthroughs have had significant PUBLIC funding and I bet a lot of core discoveries are completely publicly funded.
If you lowered private.. it would only slow things slightly; perhaps you could increase funding like in the PAST (during those first 100 years) instead of handing tax cuts to corps who only re-invest a tiny portion into R&D grants... It's an inefficient way to indirectly fund research and only promotes research with promise for great profit. Plenty of "point
Re: (Score:2)
> I bet a lot of core discoveries are completely publicly funded
You can "bet" whatever you want. If you want to know the actual facts, you can look at them instead. If you want to keep rooting for ideas that do not work, like a football fan rooting for a loaing team, make sure you don't look at the stats. You won't like them.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not yet ready to learn your religion is false. I pity the people harmed by your faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Here's how it works, since apparently you're new to workforce, or your parents didn't teach you anything.
One day, you're going to be old. You'll be 75.
You probably won't want to work when you're 75.
In order to not be working as a Walmart greeter when you're 75, you check the "401K" box when you get hired.
By checking that box your employer gives you free money match the 10% of your salary you are putting aside for wuen you get old (tax-free).
In order to have enough to live on for 20 years, you can't stuff y
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you having trouble reconciling your desire to eat something other than Alpo with your AOC bumper sticker, so you decided to go ad hominem? If you see anything incorrect in what I said, please point it out.
I was being a dick (Score:2)
On second thought, I WAS being a dick with my first sentence.
I shouldn't have said that. I apologise.
The best government money can buy. (Score:3)
The Supreme Court's action leaves it to Lobbyists to resolve an issue that's created a legal gray area for such discoveries.
ftfy
Ok (Score:2)