The drug industry, as always, claimed that without patent protection,there would be no incentives for research and all would suffer. Ifiled an expert declaration with the court （pro bono）， explaining whythe industry's arguments were wrong, and why this and similar patentsactually impeded rather than fostered innovation. Other groups thatfiled amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs, like AARP, pointed outthat Myriad's patents prevented patients from obtaining secondopinions and confirmatory tests. Recently, Myriad pledged it would notblock such tests - a pledge it made even as it filed the lawsuitsagainst Ambry Genetics, and Gene by Gene.

Myriad denied the test to two women in the case by rejecting theirMedicaid insurance - according to the plaintiffs, because thereimbursement was too low. Other women, after one round of Myriad'stesting, had to make agonizing decisions about whether to have asingle or double mastectomy, or whether to have their ovaries removed,with severely incomplete information - either Myriad's testing foradditional BRCA mutations was unaffordable （Myriad charges $700 extrafor information that national guidelines say should be provided topatients）， or second opinions were unattainable because of Myriad'spatents.

The good news coming from the Supreme Court was that in the UnitedStates, genes could not be patented. In a sense, the court gave backto women something they thought they already owned. This had twoenormous practical implications: one is it meant that there could nowbe competition to develop better, more accurate, less expensive testsfor the gene. We could once again have competitive markets drivinginnovation. And the second is that poor women would have a more equalchance to live - in this case, to conquer breast cancer.

But as important a victory as this is, it is ultimately only onecorner of a global intellectual property landscape that is heavilyshaped by corporate interests - usually American. And America hasattempted to foist its intellectual property regime on others, throughthe World Trade Organization and bilateral and other multilateraltrade regimes. It is doing so now in negotiations as part of theso-called trans-Pacific Partnership. Trade agreements are supposed tobe an important instrument of diplomacy: closer trade integrationbrings closer ties in other dimensions. But attempts by the office ofthe United States Trade Representative to persuade others that, ineffect, corporate profits are more important than human livesundermines America's international standing: if anything, itreinforces the stereotype of the crass American.

Economic power often speaks louder, though, than moral values; and inthe many instances in which American corporate interests prevail inintellectual property rights, our policies help increase inequalityabroad. In most countries, it's much the same as in the United States:

the lives of the poor are sacrificed at the altar of corporateprofits. But even in those where, say, the government would provide atest like Myriad's at affordable prices for all, there is a cost: whena government pays monopoly prices for a medical test, it takes moneyaway that could be spent for other lifesaving health expenditures.

The Myriad case was an embodiment of three key messages in my book“The Price of Inequality.” First, I argued that societal inequalitywas a result not just of the laws of economics, but also of how weshape the economy - through politics, including through almost everyaspect of our legal system. Here, it's our intellectual propertyregime that contributes needlessly to the gravest form of inequality.

The right to life should not be contingent on the ability to pay.

The second is that some of the most iniquitous aspects of inequalitycreation within our economic system are a result of “rent-seeking”：