Adam

IT WOULD BE THE BIGGEST, costliest, most provocative biomedical research project in history. The undertaking - which would reveal the precise biochemical makeup of the entire genetic material, or genome, of a human being - would, revolutionize medicine. It would grant insight into human biology previously held only by God.

Harvard Biologist Walter Gilbert Geneome Corporation.

Early this year, Gilbert announced he would launch a new biotech venture, the Genome Corporation, whose sole purpose would be to ''read'' the human genome and sell the information that is deciphered. Gilbert's plans stirred immediate controversy. How, it was asked, could someone ''own'' the human genome? By what moral yardstick could it be exploited for private gain?

Working out the sequence and mapping genes to certain areas has real monetary value. It can be sold, giving ppl an incentive to pursue it. Yet at the same time not all will be given access and some will be locked out.

Question became can he legally claim copyright protection for the sequence. Opinions differed even among lawyers. Does deciphering and then writing down the sequence meet the test of originality necessary for a copyright?

What was Gilbert’s argument? He can copyright it because someone woked it out and wrote it down. Researchers will log onto the database and ask questions such as where does this piece of DNA belong? Company will give him an answer for a price. Used the analogy of a book you can use it but you cant sell it. What he is selling is ease of access.

Slide 2

"useful" in a practical sense (the inventor must identify some useful purpose for it), "novel" (i.e., not known or used before the filing), and "nonobvious" (i.e., not an improvement easily made by someone trained in the relevant area). The invention also must be described in sufficient detail to enable one skilled in the field to use it for the stated purpose (sometimes called the "enablement" criterion).

What does U.S. patent policy say...