Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents

This is an extremely foolish title, and the tone of the article is likewise foolish. It's highly unlikely the Supreme Court has not read the amicus briefs, and almost impossible that they will not before passing judgement. These are not 9 people picked off the street and thrown on the bench to judge what the application of law is, and they don't mess around. Reading pretty much any Supreme Court decision will show you how intelligent these nine justices are.

It's popular to condemn the Supreme Court's decisions if you disagree with them, and it seems equally popular to blame them on the Supreme Court's fundamental misunderstanding of . I'm not saying the SCotUS is flawless—hardly, they are made up of people—but it would behoove authors and readers if you started from the base assumption that you are dealing with brilliant jurists. Indeed, that is how lawyers have to prepare.

The lawyers arguing against the patent were likely aware both of the justices' intelligence and their general interpretations of patent law, therefore chose not to tread the path of invalidating medical patents in general. The questions asked by the justices were fair. Not expressing skepticism does not mean there is no skepticism, for one. We don't find that out until the decisions are written.

Whether this was a case where someone should have gone after medical patents in general is up for debate. In particular, it seems unlikely that the Mayo clinic, which probably has its own medical patents, would try to invalidate the concept itself.

If you read some more of the questions and interactions, you'll see that the Supreme Court seems anything but oblivious: they're trying to probe what should and should not be patentable in a field that involves actions and reactions that are all based in chemical fact. If neither they nor the lawyers can provide a satisfactory test to determine this, then all they can do is decide the specifics of this case.

True change in this area really is something where the Court can only do so much. The definitions of patents in general are determined by Congress and its laws. If we want to change them, we have to focus there. SCotUS has merely become our backup because it's been relatively difficult, particularly in the last 40 years or so, to convince Congress to pass laws that are potentially damaging in any way to the bottom lines of businesses.

I don't see this happening. Patients (in the US) don't know the cost of their care. So, when this new "patent tax" appears, it will be hidden from the consumer and silently passed down the chain (to insurers, to companies) and medical costs will continue to spiral out of control. It's unlikely to actually change the care provided -- but it's certain to make care more expensive.

I wouldn't count on congress fixing it either. I'll pass on something I recently overheard: "Lawyers should be banned from becoming law makers. It's a clear conflict of interest. "

I don't think it's the cost he's referring to. The fact that you could personally could be treated differently because of patent law would have a profound impact on the public perception of patent law. That could help lead to real reform of the system.

I guess I'll have to reconsider then; the lawyers definitely got the short end of the stick. (;

More seriously, I would have no qualms of going into the legal profession specifically to defend against this sort of brand of crazy where possible. (And of course more mundane cases as the majority.)

I'd wake up each morning feeling MUCH better than if I became something like say, a firefighter.

It's amazing that so many entrepreneurs seem to hate the large payments that class action lawyers are awarded.

Class action lawyers perform the same kind of high-risk high-reward gamble that startups engage in. While tech startups create value by making something useful, these lawyers create value by keeping powerful interests honest. The idea that they are unnecessary or should be capped because consumers will just "in the long run" "vote with their feet" has been shown to be (patently) false: corporations can take advantage of huge economies of scale when they breach millions of contracts in small, hidden ways. The only real recourse of an individual is to participate in a class action. Perhaps the biggest part of the individual's reward is that the corporation will stop its bad behavior.

I can understand distrust of the judicial system because it shows a bias in favor of the deep-pocketed. What I don't understand is why there's a distrust of class-action verdicts, where both parties compete on a relatively even playing field.