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

41–50 of 174 posts

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

#41

Post by akiselev »

Can anyone with experience clarify this ruling? Is the SCOTUS saying that just because the specific cDNA strand doesn't exist in nature (as far as I know), then it is patentable?

Correct me if I misunderstood the ruling, but it seems to be absolutely ridiculous. You could just automate the process of isolating genes, sequencing them and statistically identifying their mRNA strands, isolating them, and creating cDNA strands. I know this isn't technically "nonobvious" but if you can automate the process to the point where you have robots spitting out gene patents, then it's a pretty low bar.

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

#42

Post by dekhn »

rcthompson wrote: post #24
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.

wrong. this happens in retroviral transmission all the time.

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

#43

Post by jfb »

RabbitAngstrom wrote: post #26

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

Also, they now have legal certainty whereas before the decision there was a chance the whole kit and kaboodle would have been tossed out.

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

#44

Post by rflrob »

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.

I am a biologist (who regularly sequences cDNA), and it is properly understood to mean complementary DNA. In fact, the syllabus' description of the process is far enough from what the process of actually making cDNA is like that it seems to me there could be grounds for a challenge, even though as others have noted, cDNA is no longer widely used for these kinds of diagnostics.

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

#45

Post by andre »

rgbrenner wrote: post #38
rvkennedy wrote: post #31

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.

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.

Unless they change that, and keep on extending it, as it has been done with copyrights.

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

#46

Post by ChuckMcM »

While its not a complete win I think this is an ok compromise. Clearly Myriad is going to be impacted as other people come up with ways to test for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes without infringing on their process, and it will make screening for these genes much less expensive.

But it leaves open the question of "infringement" on cDNA when you aren't party to the creation. Specifically the guys who have GMO Wheat growing in their field in Oregon, if they didn't put it there, they didn't know it had become GMO, and it was only discovered when Japan tested it, then what is their liability? And what is Monsanto's? (GMO Wheat isn't approved) I suspect these "escapes" of cDNA will become more common and the "factories" producing them, things like e.coli and algae, won't really respect the owner's rights here. :-)

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

#47

Post by [deleted] »

cwp wrote: post #23
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.

[deleted]

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

#48

Post by eldude »

rvkennedy wrote: post #31

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.

A historical correction to the misplaced tone of your 3/5ths reference, the 3/5ths compromise was by the anti-slavery republican north to prevent the southern democratic slavers from dominating the House of Representatives and the electoral college.[1]

[1] http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/07/18/were-our-found...

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

#50

Post by rgbrenner »

andre wrote: post #45
rgbrenner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless they change that, and keep on extending it, as it has been done with copyrights.

That's true... but I imagine if they extended it that far, reproduction rights of the child would be included in the license. Unlike corn, I can't imagine many parents would agree to sterilize their children just to include some synthetic DNA sequence. Even if the parents were very desperate (because of some genetic problem), they would still want their child to be able to reproduce.
Post reply on HN