Can (or Should) We Patent Nature?
Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court majority, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Myriad Genetics Inc. did not invent anything when it isolated two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2.
Sign up for The Nightcrawler Newsletter
A weekly collection of thought-provoking articles on tech, innovation, and long-term investing from Nightview Capital’s Eric Markowitz.
Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court majority, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Myriad Genetics Inc. did not invent anything when it isolated two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, which can be used to indicate if a woman is at risk of developing breast cancer or ovarian cancer.
“To be sure, [Myriad] found an important and useful gene,” Thomas wrote, “but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”
Therefore, Myriad was not eligible for patents. Mother Nature seems to have a better patent claim.
What do you think?
Can (or Should) We Patent Nature?
