Perhaps not but fundamental building blocks built upon those fundamental building blocks seem to have continued to be patentable and become patented in the infinitely vast field of information processing. Maybe synthetic biology is not so abstract and all-encompassing and could escape the worst ravages of the patent system after a few decades.

“[L]ittle attention is being paid to empirical evidence, and it is not clear which way the norms will tip. Our attitude should be to demand rigorous empirical and economic study before we create or extend legal monopolies. Expansive new rights over emerging technologies may be necessary to encourage innovation, but the case must be made on facts, not faith.”

We can debate the abstractions and pros and cons about business method patents, software patents, fostering or inhibiting innovation, etc. until we are blue in the face and get nowhere with the fundamental question: how do you make and apply laws to promote the progress of science and the useful arts? Even though I make my living from the IP system, I and most of my clients would prefer a more rational, evidence- and impact-based system rather than the unworkable abstractions of “obviousness” and “novelty” and “patentable subject matter.” The empirical evidence is scant and I wish all the professorial types and patent-bashers would get busy trying to come up with some good metrics and urge the Congress to come up with meaningful reform. We really need to focus the debate on the evidence and its quality.

Thanks again for a good article.