CORPORADOS

SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE ON CORPORATE RIGHT TO THOUGHT CONTROL

Elevated blood sugar is linked to diabetes.

Elevated uric acid is linked to gout.

Elevated homocysteine is linked to heart disease.

Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should
test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins.

MICHAEL CRICHTON, NY TIMES - Actually, I can't make that last statement.
A corporation has patented that fact, and demands a royalty for its use.
Anyone who makes the fact public and encourages doctors to test for the
condition and treat it can be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who
reads a patient's test results and even thinks of vitamin deficiency
infringes the patent. A federal circuit court held that mere thinking
violates the patent.

All this may sound absurd, but it is the heart of a case that will be
argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In 1986 researchers filed a
patent application for a method of testing the levels of homocysteine,
an amino acid, in the blood. They went one step further and asked for a
patent on the basic biological relationship between homocysteine and
vitamin deficiency. A patent was granted that covered both the test and
the scientific fact. Eventually, a company called Metabolite took over
the license for the patent.

Although Metabolite does not have a monopoly on test methods - other
companies make homocysteine tests, too - they assert licensing rights on
the correlation of elevated homocysteine with vitamin deficiency. . .

What the Supreme Court will focus on is the nature of the claimed
correlation. On the one hand, courts have repeatedly held that basic
bodily processes and "products of nature" are not patentable. That's why
no one owns gravity, or the speed of light. But at the same time, courts
have granted so-called correlation patents for many years. Powerful
forces are arrayed on both sides of the issue.

In addition, there is the rather bizarre question of whether simply
thinking about a patented fact infringes the patent. The idea smacks of
thought control, to say nothing of unenforceability. It seems like
something out of a novel by Philip K. Dick - or Kafka. But it highlights
the uncomfortable truth that the Patent Office and the courts have in
recent decades ruled themselves into a corner from which they must
somehow extricate themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?ei=5088&en=9ad
db806498d2739&ex=1300424400

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||