Genes and the uneducated

From some Shelstons IP blog …

‘In reaching its decision, the High Court seemed to be motivated to rule against the patentability of isolated naturally occurring genes in view of the breadth of the relevant claims, stating somewhat emotively that “[t]here is a real risk that the chilling effect of the claims would lead to the creation of an exorbitant and unwarranted de facto monopoly on all methods of isolating nucleic acids” … It is unfortunate the High Court was not familiar with the independent report on the economics of gene patents in Australia prepared by the Centre for International Economics as this report confirmed patents play a key role in promoting innovation and the public-private partnerships required to bring new human gene-based medicines and diagnostics to market.”

Well, no one seems to have a clue in this little story:

1. Firstly, the patentability of a subject matter is not supposed to have to do with whether or not there is an economic impact on society or some of its members. That’s not how the patent act is written, so shame on you High Court.

2. Secondly, investment into technology is very much enhanced by patents due to perceived lower risks of copying and reduced margins and market share, but this wouldn’t happen in Australia. So shame on you Shelstons and good on you High Court. But why not have the balls to say it straight up? That is “this is another example of how we can weaken the Australian patent system to make all those imported technology products cheaper, without breaching our international treaties”.