Judge overturns Gene Patents

Gene patents are something few Americans think about, but they are something that may transform our lives in the coming decades. Under current case law, anyone who discovers a new gene can patent it. Anyone. Not the person who has the gene in their DNA. Many patients, while being tested for unusual conditions, have had their doctor patent their own genes, which are then sold to pharmaceutical companies so treatments can be created that are worth millions. The practice is defended because it takes millions to fund the research to find new treatments.

But now, a judge has overturned gene patents. This may change the face of genetic engineering and medical treatments.

In the ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet in New York state invalidated part of seven patents granted to Myriad on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. In doing so, he might have changed the face of genomic medicine.

"This really goes to the fundamental question of 'Does the U.S. patent system work?' " says Richard Marsh, Myriad's general counsel. "We spent hundreds of millions of dollars until we broke even before we got (the test) out, to fund the research."

Without the patent on the gene, investors wouldn't have put in money to support Myriad during those lean years, he says. It's only now, when the company is actually making money, that people feel it's unfair. "Where were these people 10 years ago?"

The question of gene patents is not merely academic. They have been partially responsible for the advances produced by the DNA Revolution, by giving a profit motive for finding every disease-related gene out there. But they also restrict the scope of these treatments - companies discover ways to save life, and then deny them without exorbitant payments.

The decision that we make now may decide whether American stays at the forefront of genetic research. Or whether these advances ever reach the average citizen.

Risking jail by taking his daughter to church

One point of pride for Americans is our Freedom of Religion. No one can be prosecuted for attending any religious ceremony, or professing any faith. But it seems that at least one judge believes he has the power to prevent a father from taking his daughter to church. After baptizing his daughter without her mother's consent, Joseph Reyes was ordered to only expose her to Judaism. He is ignoring the order.

I have been ordered by a judge not to expose my daughter to anything non-Judaism,” Reyes said. “But I am taking her to hear the teachings of perhaps the most prominent Jewish Rabbi in the history of this great planet of ours. I can’t think of anything more Jewish than that.”

...Reyes and his wife are divorcing and are involved in a bitter custody fight. She says he always agreed to raise their child as Jewish. He says that’s not true.

“My daughter should be exposed to the religions of both my wife and myself … When she gets to the appropriate age, she’s going to make her own decisions on how she wants her relationship with God to ultimately be,” said Reyes.

It is horrible that these parents are using their religion to fight over their daughter. But that does not justify this action by an overreaching judge. Freedom of Religion is fundamental to our freedoms.

The Internet banned from Courtrooms?

The last time my brother was called for Jury Duty, he was surprised to learn that his iPhone would be confiscated at the courtroom door (though returned when he was done for the day). CT judges had banned all cellular devices with cameras from even jury duty waiting rooms. Now, it appears all states may take the same step for any device capable of browsing the internet. While absolutely logical, and in line with the long history of controlling the information juries can see/hear to ensure justice, this is sure to be a shock to the internet-addicted public.

Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.

The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones, e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, or communicate through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

It will be interesting seee how enforceable such a ban will be in the long term as our lives become more and more online. Will there be a new niche for "court-ready" devices which allow one to send and receive e-mail from spouses/children, but which edits out inappropriate details? Will there be a new "Courtroom Mode" on devices similar to the Airplane mode available today? Or will the salvation of the paper book be the fact that electronic books won't be permitted in courthouses?

Microsoft banned from selling Word!

The great Empire of Microsoft stands on two pillars: Windows Operating System and Microsoft Office. These are the two products which enable them to produce everything else - often at a loss. Some might argue that the XBox has become a third pillar, but most consoles are still sold at a loss.

Now, the Empire is threatened as a Texas judge has ordered Microsoft to stop selling Microsoft Word - an essential part of Microsoft Office - within 60 days over an alleged patent infringement in the handling of XML-based files. This is akin to Ford being banned from selling trucks or Sony from selling CDs and DVDs.

Most commentators believe Microsoft will be able to appeal and overturn the order before it becomes effective. But this may be the most direct threat to the software giant since the European anti-trust cases.