Whether or not the correlation is obvious is not the point. There is a long-standing doctrine that SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES ABOUT NATURAL LAWS AND PROCESSES should not be patentable.
If a discovery is made about the correlation between a measurement of something NATURAL in the body, and a dosage of a drug that should be administered, or between the dosage that is administered, and the effect is has on the body, this is MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE. THIS IS SCIENCE. It is not a patentable thing, because doctors cannot dispossess themselves of this knowledge once being told it. They are always able to USE THE KNOWLEDGE IN THEIR HEAD when treating a patient.
Therefore, this development seems to me to be atrocious, as it represents the first step in patenting KNOWLEDGE of natural phenomena.
IP law wants to encourage creativity by giving exclusive monopoly rights in creations, but at the same time BALANCE it with giving the public the freest possible access to the results. This is now being attacked at every turn. MPAA, RIAA are lobbying for SOPA and PIPA. Copyright lengths are still being extended. And now, new forms of patents are being considered. If these come to pass, I am afraid for freedom in America -- we will get the great firewall of China -- and all because of IP.
You can't patent the fact that a cotton gin works, nor can you patent the use of a cotton gin. You can only patent the design of the gin itself.
With drugs, you should only be able to patent the design of the drug itself, and probably also the method of synthesizing the drug. You should not be able to patent the idea of using aspirin to treat headaches.
The difference is that one is knowledge, and another is a mechanism. Someone has to build and produce a cotton gin, to infringe on a patent. On the contrary one only has to learn about the correlation and now doing anything with this knowledge is "patent infringement" ?
If a discovery is made about the correlation between a measurement of something NATURAL in the body, and a dosage of a drug that should be administered, or between the dosage that is administered, and the effect is has on the body, this is MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE. THIS IS SCIENCE. It is not a patentable thing, because doctors cannot dispossess themselves of this knowledge once being told it. They are always able to USE THE KNOWLEDGE IN THEIR HEAD when treating a patient.
Therefore, this development seems to me to be atrocious, as it represents the first step in patenting KNOWLEDGE of natural phenomena.
IP law wants to encourage creativity by giving exclusive monopoly rights in creations, but at the same time BALANCE it with giving the public the freest possible access to the results. This is now being attacked at every turn. MPAA, RIAA are lobbying for SOPA and PIPA. Copyright lengths are still being extended. And now, new forms of patents are being considered. If these come to pass, I am afraid for freedom in America -- we will get the great firewall of China -- and all because of IP.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/14521817014/mpaa-b...