Patently Absurd!

I am somewhat relieved that a US court has ruled that 'naturally-occurring human DNA' cannot be patented, over-turning earlier rulings (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jun/13/supreme-court-genes-patent-dna). The companies that seek such patents argue that they are needed to cover the high costs of undertaking the associated research but new technology is actually making such studies much quicker and cheaper. The downside of such patents is that they block attempts to develop alternative tests and create a monopoly situation with respect to the charging of patients (putting some tests out of the reach of the poor). I also feel that elements that have naturally evolved (as opposed to artificially created DNA) should not be claimed by any one group. It does, however, raise the issue of whether drugs extracted from animals and plants should be patented?