> The reality is that under the Patent Act, things which are not fundamentally "inventions" -- such as software algorithms, genes, and in this case, data correlations -- can legally be granted patents.

I have both hardware and software patents and I don't see this distinction that you feel is obvious.

Why is the use of a specific mechanism consisting of and, or, shift, etc to, say, efficiently route vehicle traffic any less of an invention that then removing sulphur before heating rubber to produce a substance that retains its elasticity? (Hmm - that removal and the relevant monitoring looks like a "material correlation".)

BTW - You can't patent "genes". You can patent specific genes to do specific things.