Student or Learner
So My professor, basically told me the end of the paper could be me going over the difficulties of actually writing this paper which is what I did. Be harsh I can take it, this is my longest paper ever. I think it makes sense but I haven't slept in 2 days so what do I know.
Thesis Statement: Myriad genetics patents of BRCA1 and BRCA2 discourages research innovation and creates barriers for entry in patient testing.
What if you were told that your genes can be owned? What If you were told you that your doctor may not be able to save you from some disease simply because someone had the patent to your illness and there was no legal way to research for a cure? Can anyone actually own what makes a human being? Regardless of your religious background, should pieces of you be patented and owned by whoever is able to decode what makes that part of you tick? These and other questions will have to be analyzed and answered by the supreme court of the U.S.
Throughout history science has often surpassed the laws and understanding of the courts. There is no place where this is more widespread, than when it comes to Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the patenting of the human genome. The following research paper will attempt to give some background on the history of DNA as well as the legal ramifications of companies possibly being able to patent your genes.
A. Parke-Davis V. H.K. Mulford (S.D.N.Y. 1911)
Parke-Davis was a pharmaceutical company started in Detroit in 1866. They were one of many such companies at the time but managed to distinguish themselves by creating and manufacturing a number of different drugs. In 1985 one of the owners of the company met a young Japanese chemist by the name of Jokichi Takamine. While working for the company Takamine was able to isolate adrenaline and was part of the team at Parke-Davis laboratories that identified the chemical structure. They did not realize it at the time but this discovery would unravel a chain of events that has set legal precedent for over 100 years.
Parke-Davis was able to break down and purify pure adrenaline. It was brought to market under the name “adrenalin”. In an attempt to circumvent the patent law against naturally occurring acts of nature, Parke-Davis concentrated and crystalized the compound. H.K. Mulford whom at the time was a competing pharmaceutical company sued Parke-Davis on the grounds that their adrenaline although changed from its natural form, is still a naturally occurring compound found in nature. The case was overseen By Judge Learned Hand who upheld the patent on the grounds that since Parke-Davis had modified the compound, it was considered a material change that can be patented.
Section 101 of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent act states that whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent (Title 35 U.S.C. 101). Exceptions to this law are in sections 102 and 103 which state that the patent cannot be given to an item that would be obvious by a layman or a novelty item (Title 35 U.S.C. 102). The reading of these statues constitutes the crux of the lawsuit filed against Parke-Davis for obtaining a patent for a naturally occurring act of nature. Of particular interest is the fact that no part of the USPTO’s laws and regulations actually state that acts of nature are not patentable, this has only occurred due to legal precedent.
In most situations patents that involve acts of nature are considered un-patentable. Patent applications for these items are usually denied on Section 102 of the patent act, as a novelty item. This has been reaffirmed time and time again by the U.S. Supreme court. Most recently it was challenged in the case of Funk Brothers Seed Co. V. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948). Kalo Inoculant Company had received a patent (Patent No. 2,200,532) for creating mixes of bacteria that would be beneficial to growing certain types of plants. Funk Brothers Seed Company used that information to create its own line of beneficial bacteria. Due to their patent Kalo sued for patent infringement. The majority opinion was that because Kalo had not created a new form of bacteria, just packaged different strains together, this patent was invalid due to the bacteria being acts of nature. Although the Supreme Court’s decision invalidated Kalo’s patent it never explicitly refuted the precedent of Parke-Davis, that purification and alteration of a product of nature can be patented.
Sorry. There are too many mistakes and the writing is too confused. The job is just too big to tackle.
I'll give you one tip. Never use "what if" in serious writing.