it wouldn't reach anyone. >> brown: kevin noonan, what about that? >> first of all that's probably not going to be the case. secretarily, the whole genome sequencing wouldn't infringe the patents at issue here. the sad thing is that the genes at issue even if the supreme court were to rule in its entire tee that the petitioners win, if a doctor were to or if yale started to do this testing the day after that decision, myriad has lots of other patents with lots of other claims that are directed not to the genes but to the methods themselves. and things that the court seemed not to think were a problem. and they would be able to sue them on those patents so the problem is that the answers you get that the genes are patentable or not is really not going to impact the issue that's been raised about whether patients will get care. >> brown: kevin noonan just to stay with you. one of the questions i've seen raised is whether the pace of change in the field of genetic research is outstripping the law. how relevant is a case like this? you watch these develo