"Considering genes to be patentable is not, in fact, necessary for the development of drugs or diagnostic tests. That view is rather bizarre, because it's not the extracted DNA that is the curative element, it's the technology derived therefrom, which the DOJ has explicitly stated IS patentable. A novel isolation method, a novel diagnostic method, drugs derived from an understanding of the role of the gene in a disease process - these are all patentable. [...]
Nonetheless, I think the decision is moving in the right direction and there can be no doubt that this will boost innovation and development in this space now that competition is finally possible in the genetic testing space."
Does anyone see the contradiction here? This guy says patent claims to isolated DNA are irrelevant and diagnostic testing is patentable. Then in the next breath he exults in the fact "competition is finally possible in the genetic testing space."
His analysis is admittedly more nuanced than the drones who reacted in exactly the way DOJ hoped they would (e.g., NY Times, etc.), but he still doesn't know what he's talking about.