Below: In 2012, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) produced a video presenting a woman suffering ovarian cancer who blames Myriad Genetics’ monopoly of testing procedures for the delayed diagnosis of her predisposition to the disease. This video is part of ACLU’s campaign to have Myriad Genetics’ gene patents overturned.

Below: This video is a promotion produced by Myriad Genetics. It deals with the family history of a woman whose grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer and who has feared the development of the disease. The video discusses the benefits that the Myriad Genetics breast cancer testing has offered this family. The video runs for 8 minutes 50 seconds.

Below: On December 5, 2012, Professor Robyn Feldman gave a brief lecture looking at the conflicting rulings made by the United States Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit on the validity of Myriad Genetics gene patents.

Below: This video is an advertisement produced by Myriad Genetics promoting Brac Analysis, its patented method for testing for gene mutations that indicate a high risk of breast cancer. It was uploaded in October, 2011, national breast cancer month in the United States.

Web links, documents

Internet information
On February 21, 2013, Radio National's Life Matters broadcast a segment treating in detail the February 15 Australian Federal Court decision to uphold Myriad Genetics Ltd's gene patents. The program presents detailed interviews with stakeholders on both sides of the issue.
It can be downloaded and listened to at http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/gene-patents/4530608

On February 20, 2013, the ABC online's opinion segment, The Drum included a comment by Luigi Palombi titled 'Patent law must recognise human genes are no invention'.
Dr Palombi is the Director of the Genetic Sequence Right Project at Australian National University. He presents a range of arguments attempting to demonstrate that it is inappropriate to patent human genes.
The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4528914.html

On February 16, 2013, The Conversation published a background piece by
Bill Madden, Adjunct Fellow at the University of Western Sydney. Madden gives a brief explanation of the Australian Federal Court's recent ruling in favour of Myriad Genetics Inc's gene patent rights.
The full text can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/gene-patenting-australian-court-rules-brca1-patent-is-legal-12240

On February 15, 2013, Radio National's PM program conducted interviews with a number of the stakeholder's affected by the Australian Federal Court decision to uphold Myriad Genetics Inc's gene patents.
A full transcript of this program can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3691488.htm

On February 15, 2013, New Scientist ran a detailed background piece titled 'Victory for gene patent firm in Australian court'.
The article gives a clear explanation of the basis of the court's ruling and discusses its implications for medical research in Australia.
The full text of the article can be accessed at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23180-victory-for-gene-patent-firm-in-australian-court.html

On February 15, 2013, Wired.Co.UK ran a supposed background piece titled 'Firm wins right to breast cancer gene patent in Australia, ahead of US case'. Though the article gives detailed information on the legal situation regarding gene patents in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, the piece clearly emphasises the negative aspects of gene patents.
The full text of this comment can be accessed at http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/15/australia-breast-cancer-gene-patent

On February 15, 2013, the Australian Federal Court ruled in favour of Myriad Genetics Inc and Genetics Technologies Limited in a challenge to their patents brought by Cancer Voices Australia and Yvonne D'Arcy.
The full text of the ruling can be found at http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2013/2013fca0065

On June 20, 2012, Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published a comment and analysis by Steven Salzberg titled 'The Perils of Gene Patents'.
Steven Salzberg is a Professor of Medicine and Biostatistics in the Institute of Genetic Medicine at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
Salzberg argues in detail that the effect of gene patents is to hinder research. His full comment can be accessed at http://genomics.jhu.edu/papers/Perils-of-gene-patents-reprint-CPT2012.pdf

On February 27, 2012, The Conversation published a comment by Dianne Nicol, Professor of Law at University of Tasmania. The piece is titled 'Genetic land-grab or reward for ingenuity? Australian court to rule on gene patents'
Professor Nicol gives background to gene patents in other countries and gives particular detail regarding intellectual patent law in Australia.
The full text of this article can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/genetic-land-grab-or-reward-for-ingenuity-australian-court-to-rule-on-gene-patents-5244

On February 21, 2012, The Conversation published a comment by Dianne Nicol, Professor of Law at University of Tasmania, and John Liddicoat, a researcher at the University of Tasmania. The article is titled 'Do patents promote innovation?'
Nicol and Liddicoat look at the arguments for and against patents as a means of promoting innovation and suggest a number of reforms that would make them more effective as a means of encouraging innovation.
The full text of this article can be accessed at https://theconversation.edu.au/do-patents-promote-innovation-5443

Myriad Genetics home page can be accessed at http://www.myriad.com/
Under 'Investor Relations' and then 'Press Releases' is a November 30, 2012 entry titled 'Supreme Court of the United States to Hear Isolated DNA Patent Case'. This can be found in a list located at http://investor.myriad.com/releases.cfm
The media release gives a detailed statement of Myriad Genetics justification of its gene patents. The release is a pdf.

On May 31, 2011, The Conversation published an opinion piece by Luigi Palombi titled 'Who owns the rights to the human body? It's patently obvious.'
Dr Palombi is the Director of the Genetic Sequence Right Project at Australian National University. He argues that while the processes used to extract genes may be patented and the diagnostic procedures within which they are employed may also be patented, it should not be possible to patent the genes themselves.
The full text of this opinion can be accessed at http://theconversation.edu.au/who-owns-the-rights-to-the-human-body-its-patently-obvious-835

On March 2, 2011, On Line Opinion published a comment by Dr Anna Lavelle.
Dr Lavelle is the CEO of AusBiotech, Australia's biotechnology industry organisation that represents more than 3,000 members. She has previously worked as an executive with the Australian Red Cross Blood Service, as the CEO of a public health organisation, as an industry lobbyist and academic. She holds a PhD in genetics from the University of Melbourne.
Dr Lavelle's comment is titled 'Without gene patents people will die'. Dr Lavelle looks at a number of the claims made against gene patents and disputes them.
The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11692

On September 13, 2010, On Line Opinion published a comment titled 'Who owns you?' arguing against the patenting of human genes. The article stresses the distinction between an invention, which it believes should be patented, and a discovery, which it argues should not.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10963&page=0

On September 6, 2010, the ABC's Four Corners telecast a program supplying detailed argument and analysis regarding gene patents, especially as they are applied within the United States.
A full transcript of this program can be accessed at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s3004027.htm

On May 10, 2010, On Line Opinion published a comment by Leslie Cannold titled 'Patently absurd'. Dr Leslie Cannold is a writer, columnist, ethicist and academic researcher.
Dr Cannold is critical of gene patents. The full text of her opinion can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10397

On December 7, 2006, Patent Docs, Biotech & Pharma Patent Law & News Blog published a comment by Dr Kevin Noonan titled 'In Support of Gene Patents'. Kevin Noonan is a biotechnology patent lawyer. He argues in favour of biotech companies being able to patent genes.
The full text of this argument can be accessed at http://patentdocs.typepad.com/patent_docs/2006/12/by_kevin_noonan.html