What two recent Supreme Court rulings say and don’t say
In explaining the basis of the court’s decision in Myriad, Thomas wrote “As we have recognized before, patent protection strikes a delicate balance between creating ‘incentives that lead to creation, invention, and discovery’ and ‘imped[ing] the flow of information that might permit, indeed spur, invention.’…We must apply this well-established standard to determine whether Myriad’s patents claim any ‘new and useful…composition of matter’…or instead claim naturally occurring phenomena.”
In these two decisions, it seems to us, the court may be signaling that the incentives that are needed to continue “creation, invention, and discovery” in the field of genetics are not what they were in the 1990s and some limits may be needed to overcome current impediments to “the flow of information that might permit, indeed spur, invention.”
- Texas fall armyworms out early due to unseasonable rains
- Scout for western bean cutworm, western corn rootworm in Ohio
- AgSense releases iPad version of its WagNet Mobile app
- Ag markets posted divergent moves again Thursday
- Ag markets remained mixed at midsession Thursday
- Be wary of wheat quality after wet weather
- Don’t link bird decline and use of neonicotinoids
- Look at fertilizer pricing 2013 vs. 2014
- Comments end for Enlist Duo but not the fight
- Solar energy jobs increase, wind power decrease
- Setting the record straight on 'Waters of the U.S.'
- Commentary: Setting the record straight on 'Waters of the U.S.'