Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 174 posts

Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]

#21

Post by tomku »

unmei wrote: post #16
tomku wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their patent isn't on technique ("method" in the ruling), but on the actual cDNA sequence itself. As such, it's specific to the two BRCA genes. Of course, that just makes it even more ridiculous.

I guess my question is, do they still have a patent on any BRCA1/2 cDNA or only that specifically created according to their method?

According to the ruling, their patent specifies a sequence of nucleotides of cDNA independent of any method used to create them. I read that to mean that any BRCA1 or BRCA2 cDNA that matches that exact sequence would be infringing on Myriad's patent, regardless of how it was created.

Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]

#23

Post by cwp »

quux wrote: post #6

Darn, well there goes my plan to patent myself and require that my wife buy a license before she can bear my children.

Copyright would be more appropriate there. Children could be considered derivative works, but I don't see how they could be patent infringement.

Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]

#24

Post by rcthompson »

JosephBrown wrote: post #13

An mRNA strand that is about to be translated into a protein has the introns removed, so how is the cDNA different enough from the naturally occurring mRNA other than it is a mirror image? Also, when did cDNA come to mean composite DNA instead of complementary DNA? This seems made up to imply some kind of invention instead of it just being the mirror image of the DNA molecule.

It doesn't matter that cDNA is similar to something found in nature. The fact is that DNA complementary to the mature spliced mRNA sequences of the BRCA1/2 genes does not exist in nature.

Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]

#25

Post by dnautics »

I'm generally opposed to patents, but I think this decision is crazy. For starters, the patentability of a gene now depends on whether or not there's an intron in that gene? The isolated sequence doesn't exist as a molecule in nature, and the patent was a patent on that molecule. Should have been a straightforward "gene patents (the way they were done by myriad) are allowed". Keeping in mind, there are a ton of very facile ways of breaking such a gene patent.

EDIT: Actually I'm completely opposed to patents.

EDIT2: Here is a more detailed analysis - I didn't post it earlier since dreamhost was down. http://www.indysci.org/mission/onpatenting.html

Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]

#26

Post by RabbitAngstrom »

A co-worker in my lab pointed out that Myriad's stock is actually rising[1] after the decision.The best guess is that Myriad's competitive advantage is shifting to the enormous amounts of BRCA sequences they have obtained -- this would increase the cancer-vs-normal mutation prediction power considerably.

[1] - http://www.google.com/finance?cid=658315

Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]

#27

Post by polyfractal »

JosephBrown wrote: post #13

An mRNA strand that is about to be translated into a protein has the introns removed, so how is the cDNA different enough from the naturally occurring mRNA other than it is a mirror image? Also, when did cDNA come to mean composite DNA instead of complementary DNA? This seems made up to imply some kind of invention instead of it just being the mirror image of the DNA molecule.

It is probably more accurate to say that cDNA represents a snapshot in time of a particular mRNA "species". Any particular mRNA could lead different lives, depending on what kind of post-translational modifications are made to it (e.g. different proteins editing the mRNA differently before it is eventually transcribed).

So any particular mRNA might actually have several different products, or may just get chopped up into shRNA or microRNA.

Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]

#28

Post by dnautics »

mpyne wrote: post #3

Unanimous judgment, though Scalia concurred in part and filed a separate opinion. Myriad kind of still wins as their cDNA synthesis technique is affirmed patentable, which would presumably be used in conjunction with a patient's own BRCA genes to determine their cancer risk. So the precise test itself appears patented still, but now other companies can make use of the BRCA genes themselves, perhaps to develop other t…

yeah, but no one uses cDNA synthesis to do genotyping anymore. They use genechips or direct sequencincg. Direct sequencing is NOT covered by the myriad patent; and genechips use such short DNA sequences that the 'intron' exception doesn't hold.

Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]

#29

Post by benjamincburns »

At one point I heard that some farmers, who were unaware that their crops contained patented genetic modifications as a result of uncontrolled natural reproduction with other GM crops, were being sued by patent holders. Does this ruling weigh in on this scenario?

It seems that inventions which copy themselves and masquerade in difficult/expensive to detect ways (see plant reproduction, airborne pollen) wasn't something foreseen by those who wrote our patent laws.

Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]

#30

Post by rayiner »

jweese wrote: post #5
mpyne wrote: post #3

Unanimous judgment, though Scalia concurred in part and filed a separate opinion. Myriad kind of still wins as their cDNA synthesis technique is affirmed patentable, which would presumably be used in conjunction with a patient's own BRCA genes to determine their cancer risk. So the precise test itself appears patented still, but now other companies can make use of the BRCA genes themselves, perhaps to develop other t…

Justice Scalia's concurrence, reproduced here in full: "I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of…

You have to appreciate his dedication to rigor.
Post reply on HN