1. The patents under discussion are US patents under the US law and will have NO effect outside of the US legal jurisdiction, thus they have a very limited effect in the first place.
2. The US patent system leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. As far as I know it's the only system in the world where you can patent naturally occurring material and items such as genes. I can understand a desire to patent a lab modified gene that is a great improvement on the original. But it should NOT be legal to patent a naturally occurring gene or a gene that is modified through natural actions such as cross breeding. Yet it's legal in the US patent system, well, until the time someone has the money and intent to fight it up through the expensive and convoluted US legal system to the point they may actual get someone with intelligence sitting on the full bench of the Supreme Court deciding it's not allowed.
By the time you add these two points with the current US corporate trend to try and stop their competition via expensive court cases (in the hopes they'll go broke first) instead of by producing a better or cheaper product, you have the current mess of everyone suing everyone else over frivolous patent issues on patents that should never have been issued in the first placed. I'm just waiting for someone like Microsoft, Oracle, Google, or Apple to lodge a patent on using the English language to write software code, and then suing the others for doing it.
Keep Up with TechRepublic