Patentar un procedimiento es defendible (aunque discutible), patentar un hecho científico es absurdo y, sobre todo, peligroso. Pero, al menos al sistema judicial americano, no le parece tan absurdo. La ventaja de que esto lo explique un autor de best sellers es que lo hace ameno y accesible a todos los lectores y que lo explica mucho mejor que cualquier abogado, político o académico. Eso ha hecho Michael Crichton en su articulo This Essay Breaks the Law, publicado en The New York Times, (vía Open Access News). La historia empieza más o menos así:
In 1986 researchers filed a patent application for a method of testing the levels of homocysteine, an amino acid, in the blood. They went one step further and asked for a patent on the basic biological relationship between homocysteine and vitamin deficiency. A patent was granted that covered both the test and the scientific fact. Eventually, a company called Metabolite took over the license for the patent.
Although Metabolite does not have a monopoly on test methods — other companies make homocysteine tests, too — they assert licensing rights on the correlation of elevated homocysteine with vitamin deficiency. A company called LabCorp used a different test but published an article mentioning the patented fact. Metabolite sued on a number of grounds, and has won in court so far.
La pelota está ahora en el tejado de los juzgados (poco conocedores de las bases científicas y escasamente preocupados por el desarrollo y la innovación, lo que conlleva un elevado grado de incertidumbre y arbitrariedad en sus decisiones):
On the one hand, courts have repeatedly held that basic bodily processes and "products of nature" are not patentable. That's why no one owns gravity, or the speed of light. But at the same time, courts have granted so-called correlation patents for many years.
Este caso es, por desgracia, sólo un ejemplo. Las consecuencias para la investigación científica y la creación y mejora de productos y servicios son obvias. El fin del artículo es, por ahora, irónico, pero puede convertirse en realidad algún día:
I wanted to end this essay by telling a story about how current rulings hurt us, but the patent for "ending an essay with an anecdote" is owned. So I thought to end with a quotation from a famous person, but that strategy is patented, too. I then decided to end abruptly, but "abrupt ending for dramatic effect" is also patented. Finally, I decided to pay the "end with summary" patent fee, since it was the least expensive.
