Last week, Michael Crichton had an oped in the NYT opposing patents on human genes (subscription required). Patent expert Prof. John Duffy of GWU (a member of the IPCentral Academic Advisory Council) responded:

To the Editor:

I take issue with Michael Crichton’s statement that genetic patents began “to the surprise of everyone” and came to pass “because of a mistake by an underfinanced and understaffed government agency.”

In 1911, Judge Learned Hand, one of the most celebrated jurists in our history, established that patents could be issued on the isolated and purified versions of substances occurring naturally in the body. It was no surprise when Judge Hand’s reasoning was applied to sustain patents on artificially isolated and purified genes (which is all that may be patented).

Gene patents have the same effect as all patents: They temporarily increase prices to provide greater incentives for discovery. It would be no less true and no less hyperbolic to speculate that you, or someone you love, could die if genes became unpatentable because the necessary genetic research would not be done in time.

John F. Duffy
Washington, Feb. 14, 2007
The writer, a research professor at George Washington University Law School, is a co-author of a book about patent law.

posted by James DeLong @ 2:17 PM | Patents

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(1)