Text 10249, 141 rader
Skriven 2006-03-20 20:58:46 av Mark (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 10245 av Mike '/m' (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: This Essay Breaks the Law
=====================================
From: "Mark" <nomail@hotmail.com>

Crichton makes a good argument on a variety of subjects, but he's on the
"wrong" side of the "human caused" global warming issue, so he'll not get much
support in this forum regardless of subject.

"Mike '/m'" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
news:lmcu12hc24nmhhpkm1foefcef6ho6cu8sf@4ax.com...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&or
ef=slogin
>
> ===
> By MICHAEL CRICHTON
>
> . The Earth revolves around the Sun.
>
> . The speed of light is a constant.
>
> . Apples fall to earth because of gravity.
>
> . Elevated blood sugar is linked to diabetes.
>
> . Elevated uric acid is linked to gout.
>
> . Elevated homocysteine is linked to heart disease.
>
> . Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should
> test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins.
>
> ACTUALLY, I can't make that last statement. A corporation has patented
> that fact, and demands a royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the fact
> public and encourages doctors to test for the condition and treat it can
> be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient's test results
> and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A federal
> circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent.
>
> All this may sound absurd, but it is the heart of a case that will be
> argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In 1986 researchers filed a
> patent application for a method of testing the levels of homocysteine,
> an amino acid, in the blood. They went one step further and asked for a
> patent on the basic biological relationship between homocysteine and
> vitamin deficiency. A patent was granted that covered both the test and
> the scientific fact. Eventually, a company called Metabolite took over
> the license for the patent.
>
> Although Metabolite does not have a monopoly on test methods - other
> companies make homocysteine tests, too - they assert licensing rights on
> the correlation of elevated homocysteine with vitamin deficiency. A
> company called LabCorp used a different test but published an article
> mentioning the patented fact. Metabolite sued on a number of grounds,
> and has won in court so far.
>
> But what the Supreme Court will focus on is the nature of the claimed
> correlation. On the one hand, courts have repeatedly held that basic
> bodily processes and "products of nature" are not patentable. That's why
> no one owns gravity, or the speed of light. But at the same time, courts
> have granted so-called correlation patents for many years. Powerful
> forces are arrayed on both sides of the issue.
>
> In addition, there is the rather bizarre question of whether simply
> thinking about a patented fact infringes the patent. The idea smacks of
> thought control, to say nothing of unenforceability. It seems like
> something out of a novel by Philip K. Dick - or Kafka. But it highlights
> the uncomfortable truth that the Patent Office and the courts have in
> recent decades ruled themselves into a corner from which they must
> somehow extricate themselves.
>
> For example, the human genome exists in every one of us, and is
> therefore our shared heritage and an undoubted fact of nature.
> Nevertheless 20 percent of the genome is now privately owned. The gene
> for diabetes is owned, and its owner has something to say about any
> research you do, and what it will cost you. The entire genome of the
> hepatitis C virus is owned by a biotech company. Royalty costs now
> influence the direction of research in basic diseases, and often even
> the testing for diseases. Such barriers to medical testing and research
> are not in the public interest. Do you want to be told by your doctor,
> "Oh, nobody studies your disease any more because the owner of the
> gene/enzyme/correlation has made it too expensive to do research?"
>
> The question of whether basic truths of nature can be owned ought not to
> be confused with concerns about how we pay for biotech development,
> whether we will have drugs in the future, and so on. If you invent a new
> test, you may patent it and sell it for as much as you can, if that's
> your goal. Companies can certainly own a test they have invented. But
> they should not own the disease itself, or the gene that causes the
> disease, or essential underlying facts about the disease. The
> distinction is not difficult, even though patent lawyers attempt to blur
> it. And even if correlation patents have been granted, the overwhelming
> majority of medical correlations, including those listed above, are not
> owned. And shouldn't be.
>
> Unfortunately for the public, the Metabolite case is only one example of
> a much broader patent problem in this country. We grant patents at a
> level of abstraction that is unwise, and it's gotten us into trouble in
> the past. Some years back, doctors were allowed to patent surgical
> procedures and sue other doctors who used their methods without paying a
> fee. A blizzard of lawsuits followed. This unhealthy circumstance was
> halted in 1996 by the American Medical Association and Congress, which
> decided that doctors couldn't sue other doctors for using patented
> surgical procedures. But the beat goes on.
>
> Companies have patented their method of hiring, and real estate agents
> have patented the way they sell houses. Lawyers now advise athletes to
> patent their sports moves, and screenwriters to patent their movie
> plots. (My screenplay for "Jurassic Park" was cited as a good
> candidate.)
>
> Where does all this lead? It means that if a real estate agent lists a
> house for sale, he can be sued because an existing patent for selling
> houses includes item No. 7, "List the house." It means that Kobe Bryant
> may serve as an inspiration but not a model, because nobody can imitate
> him without fines. It means nobody can write a dinosaur story because my
> patent includes 257 items covering all aspects of behavior, like item
> No. 13, "Dinosaurs attack humans and other dinosaurs."
>
> Such a situation is idiotic, of course. Yet elements of it already
> exist. And unless we begin to turn this around, there will be worse to
> come.
>
> I wanted to end this essay by telling a story about how current rulings
> hurt us, but the patent for "ending an essay with an anecdote" is owned.
> So I thought to end with a quotation from a famous person, but that
> strategy is patented, too. I then decided to end abruptly, but "abrupt
> ending for dramatic effect" is also patented. Finally, I decided to pay
> the "end with summary" patent fee, since it was the least expensive.
>
> The Supreme Court should rule against Metabolite, and the Patent Office
> should begin to reverse its strategy of patenting strategies. Basic
> truths of nature can't be owned.
>
> Oh, and by the way: I own the patent for "essay or letter criticizing a
> previous publication." So anyone who criticizes what I have said here
> had better pay a royalty first, or I'll see you in court.
>
> Michael Crichton is the author, most recently, of "State of Fear."
> ===
>
> /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)