严格的知识产权保护论者宣称，这是我们享受创新所带来的必要代价，长远看来，知识产权可以拯救更多人。两难境地：一边是人数较少的贫穷女性，另一边是未来人数更多的女性群体。但这种说法有许多漏洞。本案中，这尤其荒唐，因为，这两个基因早晚会被“人类基因组计划”分离出来。但荒唐之处不止于此。基因研究者甚至提出，专利实际上阻碍了研发新的基因检测技术，干扰了科学研究进程。所有的知识都以现有知识为基础，垄断现有知识也就是阻碍创新。巨数遗传自己的发现--就像其他科学活动一样--使用了其他人研发的技术和理念。如果不依靠原有知识，巨数遗传就不可能有今天的技术。

第三，正如拙著的书名所强调的，不平等不仅要在道德上予以谴责，它还有物质上的代价。监管知识产权的司法体系设计糟糕，很容易带来寻租--我国便是如此，虽然最高法院最近的几次判决有所改善。结果是，创新少了，不平等多了。

上月去世的诺贝尔奖获得者、经济历史学家罗伯特？福格尔（Robert W. Fogel）曾提出一个洞见：健康和技术的双重进步是自19世纪以来经济爆炸新增长的重要原因。所以，可以说，滋生垄断寻租的知识产权体制阻碍了人类的健康发展和经济发展，在更为普遍的意义上创造了不平等。

不妨另辟蹊径。知识产权的捍卫者们过度强调推动创新的作用。大多数的重要创新--计算机、晶体管、镭射激光的基本理念，以及DNA的发现--都不是因为金钱的诱惑而诞生。这些都是对知识的渴求的产物。当然，科学离不开物质支持。但专利制度仅仅是提供科研资源的一种方式，而且还不是最佳的方式。政府资助、基金会、奖励（对于发现者予以奖励，并通过市场机制获取收益，普及知识）都是可行的方案，且不会像专利制度这样造成不平等。

巨数遗传的DNA专利是最恶劣的医疗不平等现象之一，反过来看，也是最恶劣的经济不平等现象之一。最高法院的本次判决坚守了我们所珍视的权利与价值，令人欣慰。但这只是社会与经济平等的漫长斗争中的一小步。

（本文原刊美国《纽约时报》网站评论版2013年7月14日；朱新伟译）（后附原文）

How Intellectual Property Reinforces InequalityBy JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ

In the war against inequality, we've become so used to bad news thatwe're almost taken aback when something positive happens. And with theSupreme Court having affirmed that wealthy people and corporationshave a constitutional right to buy American elections, who would haveexpected it to bring good news? But a decision in the term that justended gave ordinary Americans something that is more precious thanmoney alone - the right to live.

At first glance, the case, Association for Molecular Pathology v.

Myriad Genetics, might seem like scientific arcana: the court ruled,unanimously, that human genes cannot be patented, though syntheticDNA, created in the laboratory, can be. But the real stakes were muchhigher, and the issues much more fundamental, than is commonlyunderstood. The case was a battle between those who would privatizegood health, making it a privilege to be enjoyed in proportion towealth, and those who see it as a right for all - and a centralcomponent of a fair society and well-functioning economy. Even moredeeply, it was about the way inequality is shaping our politics, legalinstitutions and the health of our population.

Unlike the bitter battles between Samsung and Apple, in which thereferees （American courts）， while making a pretense at balance, seemto consistently favor the home team, this was a case that was morethan just a battle between corporate giants. It is a lens throughwhich we can see the pernicious and far-reaching effects ofinequality, what a victory over self-serving corporate behavior lookslike and - just as important - how much we still risk losing in suchfights.

Of course, the court and the parties didn't frame the issues that wayin their arguments and decision. A Utah firm, Myriad Genetics, hadisolated two human genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, that can contain mutationsthat predispose women who carry them to breast cancer - crucialknowledge for early detection and prevention. The company hadsuccessfully obtained patents for the genes. “Owning” the genes gaveit the right to prevent others from testing for them. The corequestion of the case was seemingly technical: Are isolated, naturallyoccurring genes something that can be patented?

But the patents had devastating real-world implications, because theykept the prices for the diagnostics artificially high. Gene tests canactually be administered at low cost - a person can in fact have all20,000 of her genes sequenced for about $1,000, to say nothing of muchcheaper tests for a variety of specific pathologies. Myriad, however,charged about $4,000 for comprehensive testing on just two genes.

Scientists have argued that there was nothing inherently special orsuperior about Myriad's methods - it simply tested for genes that thecompany claimed to own, and did so by relying on data that was notavailable to others because of the patents.

Hours after the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs - agroup of universities, researchers and patient advocates, representedby the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation- other laboratories quickly announced that they would also beginoffering tests for the breast cancer genes, underlining the fact thatMyriad's “innovation” was identifying existing genes, not developingthe test for them. （Myriad is not done fighting, though, having filedtwo new lawsuits this month that seek to block the companies AmbryGenetics and Gene by Gene from administering their own BRCA tests, onthe grounds that they violate other patents that Myriad holds.）It should not be very surprising that Myriad has done everything itcan to prevent its tests' revenue stream from facing competition -indeed, after recovering somewhat from a 30 percent drop in the wakeof the court ruling, its share price is still nearly 20 percent belowwhat it was beforehand. It owned the genes, and didn't want anybodytrespassing on its property. In obtaining the patent, Myriad, likemost corporations, seemed motivated more by maximizing profits than bysaving lives - if it really cared about the latter, it could and wouldhave done better at providing tests at lower costs and encourageothers to develop better, more accurate and cheaper tests. Notsurprisingly, it made labored arguments that its patents, whichallowed monopolistic prices and exclusionary practices, were essentialto incentivize future research. But when the devastating effects ofits patents became apparent, and it remained adamant in exerting itsfull monopoly rights, these pretensions of interest in the greatergood were woefully unconvincing.