<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Intellectual Property in the Modern Age</title>
	<atom:link href="http://futilecycle.com/2007/03/22/intellectual-property-in-the-modern-age/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://futilecycle.com/2007/03/22/intellectual-property-in-the-modern-age</link>
	<description>A Wandering Through Life and Science</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:37:23 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://futilecycle.com/2007/03/22/intellectual-property-in-the-modern-age#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 02:29:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://futilecycle.com/2007/03/22/intellectual-property-in-the-modern-age#comment-17</guid>
		<description>Right now, I do tend to think that the main problems that you and I are talking about with the patent system is caused not only by a broken and underfunded patent office, but that at almost every level, patents are regulated by people who aren't educated in science and technology. The patent office has most of its work done by BAs who don't necessarily have the education to understand some of the issues involved. The court system has judges who's last encounter with learning science may have been high school decades ago. Legislators also tend not to have a strong education in medicine or science. The system can be patched a bit by having scientific or technology advisors, but still, at some point, experts have to step in. I think some sort of patent reform in that respect would help resolve a lot of these problems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right now, I do tend to think that the main problems that you and I are talking about with the patent system is caused not only by a broken and underfunded patent office, but that at almost every level, patents are regulated by people who aren&#8217;t educated in science and technology. The patent office has most of its work done by BAs who don&#8217;t necessarily have the education to understand some of the issues involved. The court system has judges who&#8217;s last encounter with learning science may have been high school decades ago. Legislators also tend not to have a strong education in medicine or science. The system can be patched a bit by having scientific or technology advisors, but still, at some point, experts have to step in. I think some sort of patent reform in that respect would help resolve a lot of these problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rosko</title>
		<link>http://futilecycle.com/2007/03/22/intellectual-property-in-the-modern-age#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>rosko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://futilecycle.com/2007/03/22/intellectual-property-in-the-modern-age#comment-16</guid>
		<description>I also fear the possibility of a patent thicket growing in engineered biological components. 

The courts seem to be willing to uphold patents for outrageously broad and simple things when it regards anything to do with medical diagnostics and treatment, as evidenced by the recent Metabolite Labs vs. LabCorp case. The patent in question here was on the act of concluding that a vitamin deficiency is present if the blood concentration of homocysteine is found to be elevated by a test (ANY test, not just the proprietary one of the patent holder, for which patentability is quite uncontroversial). In effect, the correlation between two biochemical variables was held to be patentable. The worst part was that the patent was interpreted by the court as prohibiting anyone to THINK about the fact that homocysteine levels and vitamin deficiency were correlated.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the case, meaning that for the time being the decision of the lower courts to uphold the patent will stand.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also fear the possibility of a patent thicket growing in engineered biological components. </p>
<p>The courts seem to be willing to uphold patents for outrageously broad and simple things when it regards anything to do with medical diagnostics and treatment, as evidenced by the recent Metabolite Labs vs. LabCorp case. The patent in question here was on the act of concluding that a vitamin deficiency is present if the blood concentration of homocysteine is found to be elevated by a test (ANY test, not just the proprietary one of the patent holder, for which patentability is quite uncontroversial). In effect, the correlation between two biochemical variables was held to be patentable. The worst part was that the patent was interpreted by the court as prohibiting anyone to THINK about the fact that homocysteine levels and vitamin deficiency were correlated.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the case, meaning that for the time being the decision of the lower courts to uphold the patent will stand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.394 seconds -->
