I've written about this before, but wouldn't it be nice if the arguments presented before the Supreme court in a potentially pivotal patent eligibility definition case like Myriad, actually contained discussions of science to illustrate the Law?
We're trying to discern whether isolated DNA should be patent eligible or not. OK. Then why do we have to resort to analogies like if the DNA were a tree, sap from a tree, chocolate chip cookie, baseball bat, or a liver or kidney? Huh? Why can't we discuss isolating and replicating a DNA sequence from say .... DNA?
I know we are science challenged as a Nation at least across the population as a whole -- but you'd think we'd have the ability to discuss the science and that Supreme Court justices could have access to ANY experts that they wished to explain basics to nuances of what was being presented. I'm not arguing that arcane jargon should be the basis of oral arguments but can we do a bit better than comparisons to baseball bats and chocolate chip cookies? See Patent Doc blog.
Posted by Bruce Lehr Apr 19th 2013.