decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Thomas | 545 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
cDNA
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:15 PM EDT
They can still patent cDNA. I wonder how long until that becomes a problem...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naturally Occurring Human Genes Not Patentable - Myriad Loses - Our Genes Belong to Us ~pj
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:18 PM EDT
Gene Quinn will have an apoplectic fit over this. I can
almost see his face turning red as his blood pressure rises
to the boiling point.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic thead
Authored by: drorh on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:25 PM EDT
Oh what a wonderful day. First the blow to gene patents and
now the news that Germany does not want software patents...

http://www.osnews.com/story/27120/German_parliament_moves_to_
ban_software_patents

Maybe SCO would give up by midnight?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:25 PM EDT
Corrections here.
Please list the mistake in the title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:28 PM EDT
Please mention the news article in the title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Documents here
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:29 PM EDT
Please place all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for
PJ. Please post the HTML in Plain Old Text mode so she can
easily copy it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Awesome
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:42 PM EDT

Patents are sure taking a beating.

First we get news from the PTAB (Appeal Board of the USPTO I think, haven't confirmed) which actually conforms to both the Federal Circuit and Supremes:

    simply implementing software on a computer is not a patentable application of the math
All that's left to fall in line is a clear case citation from the District Court.

And now - we get clear confirmation from the Supremes:

    No matter how you slice the DNA, it's not patentable!
Note to non-US Countries:
    If there were ever a behavior of the US you want to follow, follow this one: ensure it's clear in your patent laws that software and genes are not patentable and neither is just software+computer.
A strong solution to the software patent problem: Consider clarifying patent law so that the concept of "if you can touch it, you can possibly patent it - if it does not exist in physical form it is not patent eligible"! Of course, make it crystal clear to the lawyers that "authoring on paper = paper and lead is physical but idea is not physical".

It would also be hugely beneficial to alter patent laws so any Legal teams persenting nonsense arguments (bad behavior) are directly penalized for the bad behavior. This should include - with sufficient number of incidences - loss of Legal License.

When a Lawyer says something like:

    Adding data input to a machine creates a new machine
Pull out a portable cd player along with a music cd and ask their expert to show you exactly what physical changes occur to the machine. If no actual physical changes (and electricity running through a wire is not an appropriate change for patent purposes - make that fact clear) occur, consider the Lawyers as having presented a nonsense argument. When the Lawyer argues during patent grant for a narrower reading and during enforcement for a broader reading consider it deliberately bad behavior.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Happy dance thread here
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:48 PM EDT
The victories keep pouring in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naturally Occurring Human Genes Not Patentable - Myriad Loses - Our Genes Belong to Us ~pj
Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:12 PM EDT
Get ready for a Bill Clinton moment to define the definition of "natural".

In time I expect that term to take a legalese Jedi mind bending trip and certain parts of "natural" DNA will be patent-able; these are not the DNA strands , you are looking for that are exempt.

---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Question about this ruling and cDNA
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:13 PM EDT
Does this mean that if I create cDNA that isolates the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes
using a process that MYRIAD GENETICS does not use, that I can get a patent on
what I have created? Or is this still not allowed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

GMO
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:17 PM EDT
Step in the right direction but not out of the woods yet.

What happens with patents on living organisms? Plant a GMO crop and then get
sued by the patent holder for collecting seeds and replanting. Worse, the crop
pollinates the non-GMO crop down the road. Who is responsible, me, the other
guy, patent holder, ...

Patenting organisms that can naturally reproduce still not well defined on who
is responsible and what are the limits when things get out of control, like
recently when "unreleased" GMO wheat was found growing wild in a
farmer's field.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is a basis for rejecting software Patents as well:
Authored by: ScaredDeveloper on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:20 PM EDT
Quoted from above:
We have “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception[:] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Rather, “ ‘they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’” that lie beyond the domain of patent protection. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2). As the Court has explained, without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would “tie up” the use of such tools and thereby “inhibit future innovation premised upon them.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). This would be at odds with the very point of patents, which exist to promote creation. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 309 (1980) (Products of nature are not created, and “ ‘manifestations . . . of nature [are] free to all men and reserved exclusively to none’ ”).

The highlighted sections of the above quote are exactly the reasons why Software Patents should be rejected! The SCOTUS is describing the exact problem caused by Software Patents, which are often merely patents of abstract ideas (if they were concrete, they would include source code). The fact that Software Patents seek to cover every possible implementation of an abstract idea (even those not anticipated by the patent authors), may push them into this non-patentable area!

Often, Software Patents are based upon the discovery of a previously unknown or unanticipated "problem," for example, double-tap to zoom or pinch to zoom on smartphones. Such patents are exactly the same thing as a patent on naturally-occurring DNA! The problem always existed, and is an abstract idea.

Hopefully this information will be used by someone to challenge the ultimate patentability of Software Patents and end this abomination once an for all!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naturally Occurring Not Patentable - Myriad Loses - Our Genes Belong to Us ~pj
Authored by: vb on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:25 PM EDT
So if something is not naturally occurring, such as air on Mars, I can get that
patented? I could make jagillions $$$.

They could even make a movie about it.

/first to file!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nature as prior art?
Authored by: thyrsus on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:40 PM EDT
I suppose millions will be spent on legal fees before it is settled, but it
seems obvious to me that if cDNA is later found to occur in nature, that the
"prior art" would invalidate the patent.

So here's another movie idea: scientist discovers pre-cambrian DNA for a flower
that invalidates Santomon Inc.'s billion dollar patent: will she be able to
survive the threat's to her career, her lab, her samples, her life?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patenting PCR primers
Authored by: frederik on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:48 PM EDT
For PCR (a diagnostic test) you need two pieces (primers) of DNA at least 15 nucleotides(letters) to match the gene or region you want to analyze. They need to be within a reasonably short distance from each other. If you patent all sequences 15 nucleotides or longer within a gene region, you can exclude others from developing a PCR test on mRNA. If you do it for the gene, you can exclude people from doing it at the DNA/gene level as well.

There are 4^15 (10^9) possible 15-nucleotide sequences. In BRCA1 and BRCA2 mRNA, there are 5,000 and 10,200 nucleotides, respectively, so very close to 5,000 and 10,200 15-nucleotide sequences and actually twice that, because both the sequence and its complement would be protected. Thus, the protection covers about 30,000 15-nucleotide sequences.

Assuming roughly equal proportions of A, C, G, T, the likelihood that any of these would occur in a random stretch of DNA is 30,000 in 4^15 or about 1/36,000. The human genome is 3.2 x 10^9 nucleotides. So, it is virtually certain that at least some of the 15-nucleotide sequences occur in the human genome also outside of BRCA1 and BRCA2, and even for any given single 15-nucleotide sequences it is not unlikely that it occurs in the genome also outside of BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Also, given that a significant fraction of the human genome has been patented, many of these 15-nucleotide sequences would already be covered by other patents. The claims should have been thrown out on that basis alone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naturally Occurring Human Genes Not Patentable - Myriad Loses - Our Genes Belong to Us ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 02:26 PM EDT
What happens when cDNA is 'applied' as a therapy to a person who may then pass
that DNA strand on to offspring? Does this become at all like the recent GM
food cases?

[ Reply to This | # ]

First software, now natural genes
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 02:40 PM EDT
The American economy just had some heavy chains removed. This
should be good for everyone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The problem with addressing Noah Feldman's observation in this case
Authored by: TennSeven on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 03:25 PM EDT
I think that the problem in this case (and in many patent cases) is that people

conflate sections 35 USC 101, 102 and 103. While, as Feldman says, "there
is
nothing that a 6-year- old would consider 'invented'" about cDNA, that is
an
issue that is covered under 35 USC 102. The challenge to Myriad's DNA patents
rested solely on the ground that it is ineligible subject matter, a section 101

issue.

I don't think anyone (or at least anyone who knows the science behind it) would

argue that cDNA is patent ineligible under 101. It is a substance not occurring
in
nature (even though we use nature's mechanisms to build it), it is not a
mathematical algorithm, etc. Addressing only the issues brought before it, the

court would have no choice but to declare cDNA valid under section 101. If it
is
indeed not "novel," or if it is "obvious," then it has to be
challenged under section
102 or section 103, respectively.

[ Reply to This | # ]

For What It's Worth
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 03:45 PM EDT
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear

- Stephen Stills

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

From Myriad's Press Release
Authored by: Laomedon on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 04:25 PM EDT
Press Release
Importantly, the Court noted that many of Myriad's unchallenged claims are method claims applying knowledge about the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes. While these method claims were not at issue in this case, the Court highlighted Federal Circuit Judge Bryson's opinion that, "[a]s the first party with knowledge of the [BRCA1 and BRCA2] sequences, Myriad was in an excellent position to claim applications to that knowledge."

"We believe the Court appropriately upheld our claims on cDNA, and underscored the patent eligibility of our method claims, ensuring strong intellectual property protection for our BRACAnalysis test moving forward," said Peter D. Meldrum, president and CEO.

So Myriad is pinning its hopes on the method claims; not being a lawyer, nor, god forbid, a patent lawyer, how strong are the remaining method claims? Strong enough to keep competitors from entering the BRAC testing market? The stock price is up 7.67%.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thomas
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 04:34 PM EDT
> Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Thomas delivered the opinion ...

Did he have to say anything?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naturally Occurring Human Genes Not Patentable - Myriad Loses - Our Genes Belong to Us ~pj Update
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 05:42 PM EDT
PJ, you may want to read a chemist's take on this. He thinks that if you take an unpatentable piece of DNA and strip it of its introns, doing nothing else - you now have patentable matter again. I am not a geneticist or anything of the sort, so I have no opinion on the veracity of this claim (no pun intended). But still, it's worth a thought:

Link

/Lars

[ Reply to This | # ]

Justice Thomas Writes Another Gem
Authored by: Steve on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 05:57 PM EDT

I've been fond of opinions written by Justice Thomas for years. He writes clearly and plainly enough that a working lawyer can actually apply the decision, yet he throws in some nice turns of phrase which appeal to the writer in me.

Here's an example from a 1997 patent case, Warner-Jenkinson (520 US 17), regarding the "doctrine of equivalents":
Petitioner, which was found to have infringed upon respondent's patent under the doctrine of equivalents, invites us to speak the death of that doctrine. We decline that invitation.

I judge someone as truly smart if they can take very complex ideas and describe them so an ordinary person can understand them, without losing accuracy. Justice Thomas routinely does that as well as anyone on the Court (and better than some ever manage).

---
IAALBIANYL

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Myriad test sometimes gave false positives"
Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 06:07 PM EDT
I'd suggest that y'all boycott Myriad's tests.

It would be so nice to watch their stock price falls like a
stone. (And it would send a clear warning to other companies
that would try to patent everything under the sun that
there would be a price to pay.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I dun know DNA from cDNA
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 06:10 PM EDT

I've never had any education (formal or otherwise) in the genetic field.

But I do know a little about biology.

    Process:

    extract whole blood
    place in appropriate device
    extract blood plasma
I don't know about anyone else, but blood plasma is not something that should be patent eligible anymore then whole blood.

Curious question for the geneticists... is the difference in DNA to cDNA similar to the above? If not, is there perhaps a better similarity with another - simpler - biological science the rest of us are reasonably familiar with we could understand the relation between DNA and cDNA?

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

"manmade cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring"
Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 06:16 PM EDT
I am not sure what that means.

For example, I understand that you can't patent copper or tin.
But can you patent a mixture of copper and tin called bronze?
(Please ignore prior art for a moment.)

Can you patent a specific mixture, e.g. 2/3 copper?
Can you patent all possible mixtures of tin and copper?
Can you patent all possible mixtures of all metals?
Can a legal mind please explain this issue?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comments I posted at Patently O
Authored by: MDT on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 08:35 PM EDT
Wonder if they'll make it on the site (they're awaiting
moderation, I never posted there before).

Quinn : “A man-made thing that is identical to something
that occurs in nature is by definition new. This is why the
ruling today overrules Diamond v. Chakrabarty.”

So, if I manage to figure out a way to turn lead into gold,
I can not only patent the process of turning lead into gold,
but also the gold itself? Because, I have now duplicated
something that occurs in nature. My gold is not natural
gold, but it is molecule for molecule indistinguishable from
naturally occurring gold. In which case, I can now sue
people for owning gold, because it might have been created
using my process, yes?

I know, hyperbole, it’s actually easier to turn gold into
lead via neutron capture and beta decay. It’s easier to
make gold from liquid mercury using a neutron accelerator or
with mercury or platinum in a nuclear reactor (if you don’t
mind your gold being irradiated that is).

Quinn : “Myriad never refused any individual the test even
when they had no ability to pay anything. For reasons known
only to Myriad they did everything in their power to hide
that fact from ever coming out publicly in a meaningful
way.”

Simple, if people knew Myriad would not charge if you
couldn’t afford it, they’d get 100 million applications for
tests from people who can’t afford it. They knew this, so
they kept it as quiet as possible to keep how many people
they tested for free to an absolute minimum. Bottom line
thought.

---
MDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are patent lawyers completely unaware?
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 10:47 PM EDT
Have patent lawyers never heard of archaeology, History,
Philosophy, psychology and I could go on and on with
disciplines that do research for the shear joy of uncovering
natures mysteries?

[ Reply to This | # ]

75% price drop for BRCA tests
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 01:07 AM EDT
Link

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This had to happen
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 07:22 AM EDT
Not necessarily in this particular case, but it was inevitable that it would happen soon. When something like the patent system gets abused so badly as it has been, to the detriment of everyone, there eventually comes a moral and even legal backlash against it. The trolls even came to the notice of Obama. Now this decision is a legal one, not moral or political, as it should be based on legal argument only (yes, we know that some judges are overtly political...), and for that reason alone it should stand for a very long time.

The patent systems in several parts of the world have been broken for some time, and as a result everyone who ever buys anything has been penalised, as the costs of all the legal battles end up, widely dispersed, but affecting the cost of just about everything.

The software patent system remains a disgrace in the US, albeit there is news from Germany that is about 98% good, just not perfect. It is inevitable that there will be substantial progress on that front too, as far too many people are suffering, one way or another, because of it. It is a threat to jobs, and profits, and prosperity, amongst other things. Expect a decisive ruling in the US some time soonish. Not being a lawyer I can't begin to guess which case it will be, but it will surely happen, just as surely as the Berlin Wall had to fall one day. People will only tolerate so mauch, for so long....

But this one is far more important than even the all-pervasive software patents, as it was directly affecting human life and health, which is never acceptable. The Supremes have judged well, indeed exceptionally well, as it was unanimous.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Open Letter to the SCOTUS and Groklaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 09:22 AM EDT
Dear SCOTUS / Grokpots-

Is the item picture at the link below a product of
nature?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Michelangelos_David.
jpg

Best regards,

[ Reply to This | # ]

What a smackdown
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 10:30 AM EDT
When was the last time this court was unanimous about anything? This has to be
the easiest call since murder was made illegal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naturally Occurring Human Genes Not Patentable - Myriad Loses - Our Genes Belong to Us ~pj Update
Authored by: albert on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 11:40 AM EDT
Once again, the Court brings some common sense to a patent case. This is why I
like having non-scientists there. They certainly do a better job than the
Federal Circuit (with their tech & IP backgrounds).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quinn: "If we undermine the patent system further"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 01:33 PM EDT
If we undermine the patent system further [...]
Even the most patent-friendly entity should recognize that nothing will serve to undermine the patent system like indiscriminately calling things "patents" that have nothing to do whatsoever with them.

It's like health regulation officials warning about undermining nutrition quality by not mandating cholesterol tests for tar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naturally Occurring Human Genes Not Patentable - Myriad Loses - Our Genes Belong to Us ~pj Update
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 01:41 PM EDT
What i find funny is that the same principles of "invention" if
applied to software would deem almost all of them worthless.

Most of them only describe convoluted "processes" that by chance,
happen on a computer by software. They don't describe any "invention"
by them-self.

I wonder how much time will take for this to be picked up to start destroying
useless software patents?

[ Reply to This | # ]

'Applications of knowledge'
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 04:17 PM EDT
Unlike many of the people who I'm sure read and comment on this site, I am not a
lawyer. I am, however, a scientist...so hopefully I can bring something useful
to the table in terms of this discussion.

I agree with the idea that genes themselves should not be patentable. It's a
fairly ludicrous notion to think someone can have a monopoly over a naturally
occurring phenomenon or product. I am curious, however, of what legal
protections exist for applications of knowledge regarding a specific gene.

Let me provide some background:

1. The human genome has been sequenced many, many times over. Every gene that
exists has, for all intents and purposes, been found and characterized. There
are variations present in individuals (alleles) that can vary. Soon, all of the
common alleles (variations) will also be sequenced and before too long most of
the uncommon ones will as well. In other words, we know the genetic code that
makes people people...and have a reasonable handle on the variations between
people.

2. Disease have been around a lot longer than humans (sorry, creationists).
That's a simple fact. There are all sorts of different diseases that people
become susceptible to: heart disease, cancer, infectious diseases, etc.

3. An individual's genetic makeup (specific genes) can make them more or less
susceptible to certain diseases. We know this is true in general terms, and in
some cases we have specific knowledge of how this occurs (e.g. mutations in the
BRCA 1 or 2 genes are linked to increased risk of breast cancer).

4. The VAST, VAST majority of associations between genes and disease are NOT
known. The analogy 'tip of the iceberg' would be inappropriately optimistic
here...I think it is safe to say that we know well under 1% of the associations
between genes and disease, especially the cases in which multiple genes interact
to determine risk.

5. Uncovering associations between genes and disease risk involves research,
which is expensive. The BRCA1 and 2 genes, for instance, were identified in
1994. It goes without saying that BILLIONS of dollars had been pumped into
breast cancer research before these genes were identified (not all of that money
went to identifying susceptibility genes, of course, but a substantial amount of
money was spent on finding risk factors).

6. Once the association between a gene and a disease is known, making a test for
it is simple. Amplifying and sequencing a gene from a person is not challenging,
and it is easy to modify the primers (small stretches of synthetic DNA used to
amplify and sequence the gene). In other words, it would be virtually useless to
patent a 'method' of identifying a particular mutation because anyone else with
rudimentary knowledge could come up with an equivalent test with ease.

So the question I have for the lawyers is: is there a way to protect the
research investment of identifying the ASSOCIATION between a particular gene and
a disease? Would this be an 'application of knowledge' that would be entitled to
patent or copyright or some other form of legal protection?

If not, what is the incentive for any biotechnology company to invest in
identifying genes that are risk factors for diseases...remember that >99% of
these remain undiscovered. They won't be able to make money on patenting the
'method' of a diagnostic test bc any one of thousands of PhDs could easily
develop an alternative method once the association is known. I am pleased that
SCOTUS ruled that a gene itself cannot be patented, but I worry about whether
there are incentives for future research in this important area of medicine.

thanks,
John

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naturally Occurring Human Genes Not Patentable - Myriad Loses - Our Genes Belong to Us ~pj Update 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 07:13 PM EDT
>> I lost two grandmothers to breast cancer, and I want to say thank you
to Dan and ACLU for taking this on for us. I am very grateful. It's not just
that we can now afford to have genes tested. We can now get a second opinion
instead of having only one option.

I hope this comment is sufficiently on topic, the very important topic of
cost-effective cancer avoidance.

If you find yourself with time, you may want to check this out "Doctor
Fuhrman Steps to Good Health with High Nutrition Food" on youtube.

Summary:

Apparently there are many studies and doctor verified cases of cancer
disappearing and of impressive lowered risks of cancer death thanks to diet (no
medication or radiation treatment). Apparently, Americans (and now much of the
world) consumes lots of processed foods, which seem to remove a lot of
"unessential" mIcronutrients while maintaining a lot of calories (from
mAcronutrients), perhaps in an attempt to provide the cheapest product that just
looks attractive enough on the label. The studies cited (and the testimonials)
are impressive. One set of statistics even shows how cancer rates have risen
every single year in this country since vitamins and minerals were discovered,
ironically. We tossed out most of what mother nature gave us for whole body
protection in order to focus instead almost only on the main essential
ingredients. Many of the mIcronutrients (largely missing in meats and animal
products as well) attack cancer in a number of ways (eg, by reducing blood
vessel growth into tumors). health = mIcronutrients / calories.

The short: eat an increased amount of greens (kale is top ranked and tastes very
decent), onions, mushrooms, berries, beans, and seeds ["gombbs" or
"g-bombs") and your health will likely improve a lot if you are sick,
with particular note given to obesity, diabetes, and cancer. [Eating less is not
the way; key is eating more of the right foods.]

At 16:00 minutes and at 30 minutes, for example, he considers a few cases he
has witnessed from a number of his sick patients. Many other cases are peppered
throughout the talk.

It is in part a business for him, but you probably don't need to buy anything to
benefit from the video.

His discussion and tools he offers are based on thousands of scientific research
and personal experimentation together with very sick clients. Supposedly, many
physicians buy his material in bulk for their own clients and numerous chefs and
others participate contributing recipes to his website. The studies are
documented on the website, I believe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naturally Occurring Human Genes Not Patentable - Myriad Loses - Our Genes Belong to Us ~pj Update 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 09:17 PM EDT
This case has some very good reads.

I went to the website, did a search for "Myriad Genetics" and just finished reading the following:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-398-2n 8y.pdf

I don't know if this has been linked here yet or not... Just thought someone else might enjoy it as much as I did.

My favorite quote:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I have a sort of analytical problem.
I find it very, very difficult to conceive how you can patent a sequential numbering system by nature, in the same way that I have a problem in thinking that someone could get a patent on the computer binary code merely because they throw a certain number of things on a piece of paper in a certain order.
I always thought that to have a patent you had to take something and add to what nature does. So how do you add to nature when all you are doing is copying its sequence?


These judges cut to the chase throughout this entire proceeding, and they did so with grace and dignity. Quite refreshing!

[ Reply to This | # ]

For Great Justice!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 02:34 AM EDT
Ruling summary:

All Our Genetic Base Are Still Belong To Us

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are human genes being treated differently from other genes?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 17 2013 @ 12:10 PM EDT
If they are, why?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • The answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 17 2013 @ 12:57 PM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )