The farmer, Vernan Bowman, bought official Monsanto seeds and planted his crops. Yet, Monsanto has rules that say you can't re-use "Roundup Ready" seeds, but you can apparently sell "second-generation" seeds to grain elevators for use as "commodity seeds," and doesn't require that there be any restriction on the sale. Bowman later bought a bunch of such "commodity seeds," which included some Roundup Ready seeds, and some that weren't. Bowman was able to determine which of the plants came from Roundup Ready seeds... and then saved those seeds for replanting. Monsanto claimed this was infringement, even though the seeds were legally sold to the grain elevator and then from the elevator to Bowman without restrictions. On top of that, while Bowman had signed an agreement for his original seeds, he did not with this batch (and, indeed, even Monsanto admits he didn't break the user agreement -- just patent infringement for using the seeds).

But we think that blame-the-bean defense tough to credit. Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication; or put another way, the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might be in other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops. As we have explained... Bowman devised and executed a novel way to harvest crops from Roundup Ready seeds without paying the usual premium.

That is because, once again, if simple copying were a protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention. The undiluted patent monopoly, it might be said, would extend not for 20 years (as the Patent Act promises), but for only one transaction. And that would result in less incentive for innovation than Congress wanted. Hence our repeated insistence that exhaustion applies only to the particular item sold, and not to reproductions.

Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product. We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse. In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose. ... (“[I]t is not [a copyright] infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make . . . another copy or adaptation of that computer program provide[d] that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program”). We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances.

Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute.

All of the judges recognized that the test for patent eligibility under section 101 should be “a consistent, cohesive, and accessible approach” that provides “guidance and predictability for patent applicants and examiners, litigants, and the courts.” However, the judges hotly disagree as to the pathway that will lead to that result.

... simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.... At its most basic, a computer is just a calculator capable of performing mental steps faster than a human could. Unless the claims require a computer to perform operations that are not merely accelerated calculations, a computer does not itself confer patent eligibility. In short, the requirement for computer participation in these claims fails to supply an “inventive concept” that represents a nontrivial, nonconventional human contribution or materially narrows the claims relative to the abstract idea they embrace.

Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM.

Concurring opinion filed by LOURIE, Circuit Judge, in which DYK, PROST, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges, join.

Concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part opinion filed by RADER, Chief Judge, LINN, MOORE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges, as to all but part VI of that opinion. RADER, Chief Judge, and MOORE, Circuit Judge, as to part VI of that opinion.

Dissenting-in-part opinion filed by MOORE, Circuit Judge, in which RADER, Chief Judge, and LINN and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges, join.

Concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part opinion filed by NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Dissenting opinion filed by LINN and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

Additional reflections filed by RADER, Chief Judge.

Baker concludes by offering some advice for nations involved in FTA negotiations with clauses that that call for investor-state dispute resolution to be put in place:

India and other trade negotiators should heed the entreaties of trade, IP, and health activists who are warning against the inclusion of an Investment Clause in the EU-India FTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, and in the many other trade agreements that are underway or soon-to-be initiated. Preferably, investment chapters will be rejected in their entirety, as they are becoming a corporate sword of Damocles that hangs over the head of rich and poor governments alike. At the very least, IP should be totally defined out of "investments" and no investor claims whatsoever should be available for alleged frustration of IP-based expectations. IP right holders already have multiple forms of enforcement including private lawsuits, border seizures, criminal prosecution, and state-state dispute resolution. Enough is enough. Expanded and unbound investment rights for Big Pharma under the cover of underscrutinized investment chapters is a grave threat -- a threat with deadly consequences to millions of patients who rely on governments' rights to regulate IPRs and to use any and all TRIPS-compliant flexibilities to ensure affordable access to medicines for all.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

The appearance of precisely these same two words in the draft of New Zealand's patent law was naturally deeply troubling for the local software industry, since they threatened to provide a way to circumvent the ban as they had in Europe. And so another round of lobbying began, as reported here by Guy Burgess in an informative post on the subject:

The local IT community mounted a concerted pushback on the unclear "as such" amendment. An industry petition (backed by key groups IITP, InternetNZ, NZRise and NZOSS) was set up and gained wide support. The petition called on the Government to remove the ambiguous "as such" language, and replace it with a simpler clause that clarified the underlying intention. Labour's Clare Curran adopted the petition's proposed alternative clause as an official proposed amendment to the Patents Bill, and other MPs and parties, including United Future MP Peter Dunne, also raised concerns about the lack of clarity in the Bill.

To its credit, and thanks to the concentrated efforts of many people and not inconsiderable political pressure, the Government decided to take another look at the Bill and has now put forward a new amendment.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Throughout the years, key breakthroughs inventions such as Polacolor film (1963), the flashcube (1965), the automated teller machine (1973), the halogen lamp (1974), the fax machine (1975), the liquid crystal display (1980), the printer (1986), the Kodak Photo CD (1991), the Nicoderm antismoking patch (1992), Taxol anticancer drug (1993), lab on a chip (1996), and HDTV (1998) have received the prize.

Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It's driven entirely by U.S. industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our U.S. counterparts.

The Chilean government said today it does not recognize as a valid instrument rating called "301 list" that makes the United States on violation of intellectual property rights and this year again includes the country in its Priority Watch section .

"This report is conducted outside the margins of the Free Trade Agreement between our country and the U.S., and therefore not recognized by Chile as a valid instrument rating," said a statement released this morning.

The "'301 List' lacks clear criteria for categorizing the different countries, but is rather a reflection of the interests of American industry selectively applying their intellectual property standards to other countries," it added.

As part of our sponsorship program with the Application Developers Alliance, we're highlighting some of the content on DevsBuild.It, their new resource website, that we think will be most interesting to Techdirt readers.

We've talked a lot about the tax on innovation that patent trolls create, which is well-known inside startup circles but often misunderstood by the broader public, thanks to the pro-innovation rhetoric of high-profile trolls like Intellectual Ventures. The conversation is getting more attention lately, especially with the recent news of Senator Schumer's patent reform bill which specifically aims to fight the patent troll problem, and this interview with an anonymous developer from a tech startup offers some perspective from someone who is directly affected by the issue.

• First up, is a documentary about Aaron Swartz called The Internet's Own Boy by Brian Knappenberger, who previously did a documentary about Anonymous. Knappenberger's film isn't a "memorial" about Swartz, but rather an "investigative" documentary about his story and the lawsuit against him, as well as the legal structure that led to his arrest and trial. The video that Knappenberger has put together is really compelling and touching: This project has received a lot of attention, so there's no surprise that it's quite close to its $75,000 target with a few weeks to go. It looks like it should be a great project to support.
• From once CFAA case to another. Krystof Andres & George Russell are doing a documentary called The Hedgehog & The Hare, all about the CFAA, but mainly focused on the case against Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer. The documentary will also explore how the CFAA goes way too far in trying to criminalize perfectly reasonable computer activities. The target for this project had much more modest goals than the Swartz one, though the production values definitely look a bit more amateurish. Plus, frankly, the rewards on the Swartz movie are a lot more reasonable. That said, with just a few days left, it looks like this movie is likely to squeak by the target even if it's just slightly under as I write this.
• This next one, I'm a bit less sure about, but the topic could be interesting. It's supposedly a short film, made in South Africa about the big pharmaceutical makers going after generic drug makers, called The Cure. What makes me a bit unsure about is that the filmmakers, Katey Carson and Errol Schwartz, seem a hell of a lot more excited about the fact that (a) they signed up some "Oscar-winning talent" to be in the film and (b) that they're filming the whole thing with an iPhone, than they are about the story, which they barely mention at all. The topic sounds interesting. I just wish they'd actually have said something about that, rather than the other stuff which really isn't that interesting. The project has barely raised any money, and they're pretty ambitious to seek $35,000 for this. But since it's an Indiegogo "flex funding" campaign, they'll get the money even if they don't raise the full amount. Also, the "rewards" you get back seem ridiculously high priced. You have to pay $100 just to get a download of the short film and $50 for the script? Hmmm. Love the idea of a film that highlights problems with drug patents, but not sure this is the best way to do it.
• And, finally, a documentary about piracy. I mean that's what critics insist this site is all about, right? So I figured, why not. Here's a documentary film about a Somali pirate -- you know, one who actually hijacked a ship, called The Smiling Pirate, which aims to tell the story of the one remaining living member of the pirates who hijacked the Maersk Alabama. As the story suggests, despite a forthcoming Tom Hanks movie about this whole thing, there appear to be a lot more questions than answers about what really happened both aboard the ship and then with the captured pirate after the whole thing happened. Sounds like an interesting story, but it hasn't picked up very many backers yet. It's also an Indiegogo flexible funding project, so will receive any money it raises, but it's not clear if it'll get enough to really support the making of the documentary any time soon.

One of the things I find fascinating about this whole ordeal is the fact that many of the articles written since Patentlyo’s blog post all assume that this was some sort of “PUBLIC” rant or tirade. Everyone assumes that this was some sort of “Open Letter” to the USPTO that I wrote to shame this particular Examiner (in fact, this was just between the Examiner, his Senior Examiner and me…and no one else). In fact, this was a confidential letter and anyone who tells you anything to the contrary is full of shit, I don’t give a fuck what they tell you.

I’m gonna have to crowdsource this one because I’ve been doing research and can’t seem to figure out how Dennis Crouch was able to access my account with the USPTO. It has always been my understanding that patent applications less than 18 months old and their office action responses are to remain confidential. I’m starting to think that Patentlyo’s Dennis Crouch just wants me to believe that it is common knowledge that you can access anyone’s records there at the USPTO. However, from my own research I have found no evidence whatsoever that it is possible. And more importantly, I DON’T EVEN KNOW IF HIS ACTIONS WERE EVEN LEGAL!

The more I think about it, the more likely it is that Dennis Crouch may have broken a whole bunch of laws. When it comes to cyber crimes there are state laws (one for where he lives, possibly where I live, and that of Alexandria, Virginia (USPTO).

And then of course there are Federal laws as well such as the CFAA (Computer Fraud & Abuse Act) which makes it a felony to hack and steal documents similar to what Dennis mother fucking menace may have done.

You see, for the past several years I have taught myself how to build my own websites, everything…from A-Z. I can do HTML, the Videos, the graphics, the images, CSS, and even the SEO. And I think that I can build one hell of a website. For the past several years, I have had countless people call me out of the blue and ask me who built my website. When I reveal to them that it was me, they usually respond with something like, “No, really, who actually built your website?”

I love building websites. I get absorbed in it, and I can’t tell you how many times I have looked up at the clock to see “3:AM”, and wonder where the past 12 hours went. Some guys have video games, girls have shoe hunting expeditions, I have the website munchies. So, if any of you have gotten this far and think you need a website, go ahead and give me a call, and I’ll hook you up!

Authorities said the Basel-based company for a decade lavished healthy speaking fees and "opulent" meals, including a nearly $10,000 dinner for three at the Japanese restaurant, Nobu, to induce doctors to prescribe its drugs.

They said this led to the Medicare and Medicaid programs paying millions of dollars in reimbursements based on kickback-tainted claims for medication such as hypertension drugs Lotrel and Valturna and the diabetes drug Starlix.

The charges are detailed in a whistleblower lawsuit first filed against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp by a former sales representative in January 2011 and which the U.S. government has now joined.

When the government grants drug companies patent monopolies that allow them to sell drugs at hundreds or even thousands of times the free market price it gives them an enormous incentive to do things like pay off doctors to prescribe drugs. Everyone who has ever taken an intro economics class understands that fact.

Unfortunately our leading economists do not seem aware of how protectionism in the prescription drug industry leads to corruption that can both raise costs and jeopardize the public's health.

That might seem a reasonable request, since there is no doubt that India's production of generics reduces the profits of the pharma companies in Europe, which could charge far higher prices were there no competition from generics. But what that overlooks -- and what secret negotiations allow those involved to overlook -- is the impact such a move would have on millions of people around the world.

A letter from a group of Cambodian activists that struggle to supply much-needed medicines to those too poor to buy them, published on the infojustice.org site, provides us with a rare insight into what the EU's demands would mean for the world's poor:

We are saddened that behind the rhetoric of democracy, human rights and freedom the EU is in fact prioritising corporate interests to the lives of millions of people. It is needless to say that those affordable generic drugs are absolutely vital for the lives of millions who otherwise cannot afford expensive treatment of life threatening diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria and HIV-AIDS. Many suffering from such serious diseases would not be able to survive without these generic drugs produced in India.

…

Having seen the importance of made-in-India generic drugs for the lives of millions, we in no ways can express our frustration about the attempt of EU and European pharmaceutical giants to control the production of these cheap medicines. This must stop right now. It is a true example of putting profits before people's lives and take advantage of people's illness for corporate profits. Our lives should not be regarded as a business opportunity. We urge the EU to reconsider its pursuit of intellectual property rights for medicines and to realise that blindly protecting the interests of large European pharmaceutical corporations will lead to nothing but a subtle form of genocide of the poor, their families and children in developing countries across the world.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

To create tests for hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer, our company and its investors spent more than $500 million over 17 years before we were able to recoup this investment.

We think it is right for a company to be able to own its findings, just as pharmaceutical and other companies do all the time.

We know that there were other labs looking for the BRCA genes and they had announced that they would not patent them if they were the first to find it. We also know that prior to the patent actually being issued, there were other labs doing BRCA testing and Myriad shut all that testing down. So we know in this particular case that problem would not have arisen.

But the point of the whole -- the whole point of the product of nature doctrine is that when you lock up a product of nature, it prevents industry from innovating and -- and making new discoveries. That's the reason we have the product of nature doctrine, is because there may be a million things you can do with the BRCA gene, but nobody but Myriad is allowed to look at it and that is impeding science rather than advancing it.

A new report from the ETC Group, which describes itself as working "to address the socioeconomic and ecological issues surrounding new technologies that could have an impact on the world's poorest and most vulnerable people", offers an interesting view of how the big agribusiness companies are trying to do that (pdf).

Making its position quite clear, ETC calls the approach "philanthrogopoly" -- a "charity" cartel that is designed to assuage fears that they represent an anticompetitive oligopoly, while simultaneously ensuring that real control remains with the agribusiness companies even after key patents have expired:

The Gene Giants know their market dominance looks conspicuously like an anticompetitive oligopoly, so they’re launching a series of initiatives -- including the false promise of cheap, post-patent GE seeds -- to mollify antitrust regulators and soften opposition to transgenics while advancing their collective market control.

One thing that the Accord will not lead to is a flood of low-cost seeds produced by generics companies, as has already happened in the world of pharma, with huge knock-on benefits for the world's poor. For that to happen, the key safety testing data held by the agribusiness giants would need to be available. And despite the reasonableness of requiring companies to do that -- after all, if they want people to eat their products, they should be prepared to release the scientific evidence it is safe to do so -- that's not likely to happen unless they are forced to by governments.

Another factor making it extremely unlikely that we will see many seed generics is the dense web of patents that now envelope GE varieties, as ETC explains:

In the words of Randy Schlatter, DuPont Pioneer's senior manager of intellectual property: "What growers may not realize is that even though the trait patent expires, there are a host of other intellectual property patents on those varieties that are just as strong." In an interview with DTN/Progressive Farmer, Schlatter observed: "If there is a [first generation genetically engineered] soybean in the market today that is truly generic and not protected by a patent of some sort, I've not been able to find it." DuPont Pioneer, the world's second biggest seed company, has more than 225 patents covering its portfolio of soybean seeds -- not just on transgenic traits -- but on breeding technologies, germplasm and conventional ("native") traits. Even if a single transgenic trait goes off patent, the maize or soybean variety that contains the trait is likely the subject of a complex web of intellectual property. The two dozen patents on biotech seed traits that will expire over the next decade are dwarfed by the thousands of existing patents on traits, seeds and varieties

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Few would argue that the Musical Instrument Digital Interface -- MIDI -- is quite in the same league as the World Wide Web, and yet for musicians it has been hugely important in providing a common standard for playing and composing digital music. As an article in Fortune reminds us, one reason for that success is that like Berners-Lee, MIDI's inventor, Dave Smith, also gave away his brilliant creation:

when Smith collaborated with a handful of Japanese companies -- including Roland and Yamaha -- to bring MIDI into the world 30 years ago, he skipped the licensing fees, instead offering up his idea for the world to steal. "We wanted to be sure we had 100% participation, so we decided not to charge any other companies that wanted to use it," says Smith.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Some might look at the silky wording of IP Nav's letter to Renaissance and see a close question; this court, however, sees an unmistakable and intentional warning shot across the bow. The actual message is pellucid to any patent litigator, so that IP Nav's use of apophasis is disingenuous and unavailing. Remember Mark Antony's funeral oration in Julius Caesar? That's how an experienced business executive or lawyer would view IP Nav's assertions that "we are focused on addressing these issues without the need for costly and protracted litigation" and "our client's preferred approach is to conclude licensing discussions without resorting to litigation. We hope you share this objective." The implied "or else!" oozes from this letter like lye from lutefisk. To paraphrase an observation attributed to Anton Chekhov, you don't hang a gun over the mantle in Act I unless someone is going to fire it in Act III.

Our dealings with this particular troll reach back to December 2010 when IP Navigation Group (IP Nav), as agent for a supposedly secret patent owner, now known as Parallel Iron, accused Rackspace of patent infringement. IP Nav told us that they could not divulge the details of their infringement claims – not even the patent numbers or the patent owner – unless we entered into a “forbearance agreement” – basically, an agreement that we would not sue them. IP Nav was worried that as soon as we found out what their patents and claims actually were, Rackspace would sue to invalidate their patents or for a declaration that Rackspace does not infringe.

Unfortunately, the lawsuits filed on the ‘565 patent were just part of the pattern of misconduct by Parallel Iron and IPNav. Parallel Iron-Texas did not have standing to sue because the ‘565 patent was not enforceable by Parallel Iron- Texas. The ‘565 patent was subject to a terminal disclaimer, requiring that the ‘565 patent be commonly owned with an earlier patent. Unaware that Parallel Iron- Texas had no right to enforce the ‘565 patent, many of Parallel Iron-Texas’s targets settled out to avoid the high cost of litigation. But when one of the targets discovered the lawsuit’s fatal defect, Parallel Iron-Texas immediately dismissed all but one of the remaining defendants (the last defendant, EMC, was not dismissed until July 2012).

Each party agreed “that it [would] not bring litigation against the other Party from the date of execution of [the Forbearance Agreement] until 30 days after either Party provides written notice to the other Party that discussions between the Parties have ended.” Parallel Iron provided no such notice, yet sued Rackspace in Delaware. Thus, it breached essentially the only covenant of the contract.

Parallel Iron’s premature lawsuit amounts to a material breach of the Forbearance Agreement. Rackspace has been completely deprived of the benefit of the Forbearance Agreement. Rackspace cannot be adequately compensated for Parallel Iron’s breach. Parallel Iron cannot cure its breach. Parallel Iron’s behavior—breaching the only covenant of the contract—cannot be said to comport with the standards of good faith and fair dealing.

IPNav—in addition to Parallel Iron—is liable on the Forbearance Agreement because it was the agent to an unidentified principal. The Forbearance Agreement did not contain any language releasing IPNav from liability.

The purpose of this solicitation is to procure services to obtain a supplier who possesses specific subject matter expertise in the areas of intellectual property (IP) strategy, the monetization of IP portfolios and the development of Intellectual Asset Management practices. The purpose of this contract is to evaluate the U.S. Postal Service's ('Postal Service') current IP strategy and define the steps, based on current industry best practices, needed to develop a comprehensive strategy for developing, managing, and monetizing IP.

The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people.

In determining all policies for postal services, the Postal Service shall give the highest consideration to the requirement for the most expeditious collection, transportation, and delivery of important letter mail.

"I'd appreciate you not running a photo of me, anywhere," said Rust. "You know how photographs work, with copyright and all. If there's a photograph up online of me, I own it."

“The inventor obviously came up with something that’s widely used,” Farney said. “That happens sometimes.”

Meanwhile the evidence of international patent filings is looking increasingly ominous. According to data compiled by the World Intellectual Property Organization, the world’s single most prolific filer of international patents as of 2011 was ZTE, a Chinese telecommunications corporation. Its filings were up an astounding fivefold from 2009. Another Chinese corporation, Huawei, moved up to third in the 2011 league table. The only United States corporation to make the Top 10 was Qualcomm.

All this is the more troubling because United States patent law has now been drastically weakened. Congress has made it much harder for small American inventors to protect their intellectual property from infringement and theft.

Pat Choate, the author of “Hot Property,” a book on the theft of intellectual property, maintains that if the new patent regimen had existed when corporations like Apple and Microsoft first got going, they might never have made it out of the little leagues. Their patents would have been quickly infringed by predatory larger corporations, and rather than engage in unequal litigation battles against deep-pocketed and ruthless opponents, they could have felt forced to share their technology on concessionary terms.

If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then the have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want.

"I have more lawyers than I have employees," said the entrepreneur, who asked to remain anonymous for fear he would be the target of even more lawsuits.

Young companies that are looking for venture capital are most likely to settle, so goes the conventional wisdom, because they have limited cash and worry that a lawsuit will scare off investors. It's cheap to bring a lawsuit, but expensive—$2.5 million on average—to defend against one. Not surprisingly, the majority of patent suits are settled out of court.

"The system is so stacked against me," said the e-commerce entrepreneur. "To prove I'm right, it will cost me more money than I have raised in my company's existence. If I win, I don't get the money back, and if I lose, I owe triple damages."

That's what makes today's decision so important. It's not just about allowing Indian generics manufacturers to offer Glivec for a fraction of the Novartis price; it's equally about establishing the principle that "evergreening" patents won't be as easy in India as it is elsewhere, where the practice is common. This will allow India's pharma companies to produce a wide range of drugs at low prices that can then be sold to emerging countries unable to afford Western prices.

Doubtless, many lives will be saved as a result, but that doesn't seem to be any comfort to the head of Novartis in India, who is quoted in a press release as saying:

"We strongly believe that original innovation should be recognized in patents to encourage investment in medical innovation especially for unmet medical needs," said Ranjit Shahani, Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Novartis India Limited. "We brought this case because we strongly believe patents safeguard innovation and encourage medical progress, particularly for unmet medical needs. This ruling is a setback for patients that will hinder medical progress for diseases without effective treatment options."

Here, for example, is the story of how Novartis came to gain its highly-lucrative monopoly on Gleevec/Glivec, as told by the key researcher who actually developed it: Brian Druker, chair of Leukemia Research and professor of medicine at the Oregon Health and Science University Cancer Institute. He explained how the crucial initial research was carried out in an opinion piece published on the Livemint site in 2007:

The basic research that led to the identification of enzyme inhibitors for CML [Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia -- the main condition that Glivec is designed to treat] dates back to 1960 with the identification of the Philadelphia chromosome in patients with CML by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Peter Nowell and David Hungerford. In 1973, Janet Rowley at the University of Chicago determined that the abnormal chromosome was due to a translocation of genetic material.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+