tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2774042125883658.post7525948777308838544..comments2024-03-29T04:18:57.997-05:00Comments on Holman's Biotech IP Blog: Myriad and the ACLU Disagree over Claim Scope, But Apparently Not over Patent Eligibility of Genetic Diagnostic MethodsChris Holmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13743481878076443159noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2774042125883658.post-12794076130998141992011-12-05T13:03:32.722-06:002011-12-05T13:03:32.722-06:00If the so called conservative congress is so very ...If the so called conservative congress is so very concerned about excessive regulation of business than they ought to revamp the entire patent and tradmark system to make it harder for the holders of these patents and trademarke to sue for violations. Everybody pays for the legation one way or another. Many many businesses are seriously harmed by having to defend themselves against lawsuits brought by all the holders of these unreasonable patents and trademarks. Consumers are forced to pay much higher prices for the patented and trademarked services and products than would otherwise be the case. Stop the madness now.Penny Stock Investmentshttp://www.manhattancalumet.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2774042125883658.post-61925836398429878412011-03-12T05:15:49.637-06:002011-03-12T05:15:49.637-06:00Simply marvelous!!! Your article provides a fresh ...Simply marvelous!!! Your article provides a fresh new insight to this topic which was yet undiscovered. I must say your research skills are sharp and your narration is interesting. Splendid work…Generic viagrahttp://carepharmarx@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2774042125883658.post-78903640618476961552010-12-09T20:51:48.665-06:002010-12-09T20:51:48.665-06:00District courts in both AMP v. USPTO and Prometheu...District courts in both AMP v. USPTO and Prometheus v. Mayo had it right -- the "invention" is the inference drawn. Everything that happens before the inference is drawn is peripheral (not to mention old), and no action is required to be taken after the inference is drawn. Michael Shermer warns of the danger of intelligent and articulate people believing weird things. Every time I read a post by you and Dr. Noonan regarding this issue I immediately think of Shermer's admonition. There is no possible way that these claims are valid under our patent laws. Having said that, I would not oppose a new class of patent for these types of discoveries. Something in the range of a five to ten-year term. My personal preference is a marketing exclusivity period for new laboratory-developed tests, just as currently exists for NCEs. I think this would be a legitimate response to the FDA's recent decision to exercise authority over LDTs (in case you didn't know, FDA never really exercised any oversight over these tests, also known as "home brew" tests).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com