Does this mean that someone born with synthetic DNA is guilty of infringement if they have children? Do they need to buy a licence to keep living? Perhaps as a compromise, the court can decide that they count as three fifths of a person.
Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]
31–40 of 174 posts
Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]
#32Does this mean that someone born with synthetic DNA is guilty of infringement if they have children? Do they need to buy a licence to keep living? Perhaps as a compromise, the court can decide that they count as three fifths of a person.
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]
#33Unanimous 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…
cDNA occurs in nature (reverse transcriptase).
In fact DNA intermediates with introns spliced can be reintegrated into the genome.
Further, faulty viruses can acquire oncogenes (intron-splicted, mtuated versions of growth factors, like EGF and HER2/neu) and transfer them to other cells via cDNA intermediates. It's not hard to believe that nature has in fact passed BRCA cDNAs around via retroviral intermediates.
Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]
#34Idiotic decision. DNA should not be patentable.
Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]
#35Does this mean that someone born with synthetic DNA is guilty of infringement if they have children? Do they need to buy a licence to keep living? Perhaps as a compromise, the court can decide that they count as three fifths of a person.
Once you are born with synthetic DNA, is it not "existing in nature?" An interesting point, but cloning is not very popular among bioethicists.
Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]
#36Do they allow patenting a DNA sequence specified by a regular expression or a grammar? Also, what happens if the synthetic DNA is later found to exist naturally?
Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
He's consistent, which is about the only nice thing I'd want to say about him.
Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]
#38Does this mean that someone born with synthetic DNA is guilty of infringement if they have children? Do they need to buy a licence to keep living? Perhaps as a compromise, the court can decide that they count as three fifths of a person.
The parents would have bought the license for their child when they agreed to have the DNA modified. By the time that child has children, the patent would have expired.
Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]
#39There's a new TV series that touches upon this - Orphan Black.
---- Spoilers, obviously ----
So they're clones, and they have a "special repeating marker" of some sorts. One of the clones is a biochemist, and she manages to decode it. Turns out, it is a copyright message covering those organisms and their biological offspring as property of X corporation. -------- Spooky, but wouldn't the message get diluted after reproduction?
Re: Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]
#40At 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 somethi…
This seems to be a myth: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...