![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I love it when the universe responds to my suggestions. :-) A week ago I wrote that we should ban patents on genes (as opposed to specific genetic therapies) as one way of reducing healthcare costs. A judge just did that in one specific instance, potentially paving the way for all other gene patents to be invalidated. It looks like the case was the work of the ACLU and the Public Patent foundation, which pre-emptively challenged the company holding the patents. Read more here.
I know that the revenue potential from gene patents helped drive the sequencing of the human genome in the late 1990s, but the incentive structure should have been different. 17 years of exclusivity based on who got to a particular piece of code first is excessive, especially when there's little incentive for competitors to understand what the gene does once one company sequences it.
I know that the revenue potential from gene patents helped drive the sequencing of the human genome in the late 1990s, but the incentive structure should have been different. 17 years of exclusivity based on who got to a particular piece of code first is excessive, especially when there's little incentive for competitors to understand what the gene does once one company sequences it.
