I'm not sure ACLU will prevail here. If a photographer takes a photo of me, I still own the rights to "me", but the photographer owns the rights to his photograph of me. I can ask for that photograph, and even the rights to that photograph, but the photographer isn't under any legal obligation to provide that (as far as I understand).
How is that different to this case? MG made a "sample" (for lack of a better word) of a person's genetics, and they own the copyright to the database expression of that "sample". The person still owns their genetic information, but why does MG need to hand over the database, if that was not the contract at the time the sample was made. After all, the patient can go and get another sample that they do own the rights to any time.
You may not be able to copyright facts, but you can certainly take a photograph which displays the "fact" of how I appeared at one particular moment in time, and own the copyright to that photograph.
Am I missing something? Why does ACLU think they will win here?
I think this is the real intention here. Taken together with the ruling that EU and US data transfer agreement doesn't comply with European human rights law, I'd theorise that the ultimate aim is to make it illegal (in Europe) for non-European companies to index the European web.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by profsteven.