Do you think companies should own the right to perform some blood test?

Unless you think it’s moral to take it from them by force, after they invented/bought the test. In which case, if they didn’t invent it, do you then de-compensate the party from which they purchased the rights? That can get pretty complicated, pretty fast. It’s like the reparations debate: to whom is what owed and who owes it?

You mean, whether a company has the right to own/license/administer the process/methodology that they developed using their own money after they have correctly/properly filed a patent w/the Patent Office (and the Patent Office duly accepts the patent application)? Yes. Of course they do.

Also, I think the company in question patented the specific genes that they discovered to be the cause of breast cancer, then developed a test to find those genes. The patents on 2 specific genes was ruled invalid on March 29, 2010. That sets a precedent: gene patents are probably going to be routinely ruled invalid. Bam.

They came up with it, it’s theirs.

If you wrote a book, would you want someone to reprint it and sell it without giving you your props?

I think it’s fine.

I am not comfortable with anyone owning our genes and they kind of do.
Law suits are in the works.
I can see both sides.

No; it’s invasive.

No. And a recent decision by the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York agrees.

@astrochuck Yup

There is making a profit and there is exploiting people to over pay CE O’s and a few others.
Like AIG and other companies have done.