Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by michael_miller » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:15 PM UTC

eldude wrote: post #48

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...

I know you meant well with your comment, but in general, it's best to avoid well-actually comments. This is one of Hacker School's core rules; they elaborate on why it's a good idea to avoid these types of comments at https://www.hackerschool.com/manual.

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

#62

Post by toufka » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:15 PM UTC

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.

In combination with the recent Monsanto case, it'd be consistent that the individual would owe licensing fees for each additional reproduction.

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

#63

Post by andrewfong » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:16 PM UTC

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.

That's an interesting scenario given the recent ruling in Bowman v. Monsanto. If planting the offspring of synthetic Monsanto seeds infringes Monsanto's patents, then by extension, conceiving the offspring of a person with synthetic DNA could infringe patents as well.

In practice, this would be limited by the 14th Amendment. The prohibition against slavery trumps patent law, period. But I'm curious how far biotech companies would go before they got shut down.

EDIT: As pointed out below, 13th not 14th. My bad. Although due process in 14th would probably kick in as well.

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

#64

Post by anonymfus » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:17 PM UTC

RabbitAngstrom wrote: post #35

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.

Once you are born with synthetic DNA, is it not "existing in nature?" An interesting point, but cloning is not very popular among bioethicists.

Why cloning? In vitro fertilisation is common.

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

#65

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:19 PM UTC

andrewfong wrote: post #63

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.

That's an interesting scenario given the recent ruling in Bowman v. Monsanto. If planting the offspring of synthetic Monsanto seeds infringes Monsanto's patents, then by extension, conceiving the offspring of a person with synthetic DNA could infringe patents as well. In practice, this would be limited by the 14th Amendment. The prohibition against slavery trumps patent law, period. But I'm curious how far biotech co…

> In practice, this would be limited by the 14th Amendment. The prohibition against slavery trumps patent law, period.

The prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude (except as punishment for a crime) is the 13th Amendment, not the 14th Amendment.

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

#66

Post by shmerl » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:21 PM UTC

daughart wrote: post #49

shmerl wrote: post #34

Idiotic decision. DNA should not be patentable.

What if you engineer a completely novel protein, with novel regulatory sequences, for a novel function? Should you be unable to patent such an invention?

No, I principally think than biosubstances should not be patentable. The fact that DNA was generated artificially doesn't make it somehow magically different from the natural one.

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

#67

Post by acqq » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:22 PM UTC

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/the-supreme-court-s...

it is not the scientists who removed the introns from the officially unpatentable original DNA sequence to make the new, patentable cDNA sequence. It is nature itself, through the magic by which pre-RNA, which includes the introns, becomes messenger RNA, which does not. The Supreme Court described this process by saying, “the pre-RNA is then naturally ‘spliced’ by the physical removal of the introns” -- that is, the introns are removed as part of the ordinary process by which messenger RNA is created. The role scientists then subsequently play is to take the messenger RNA and use it to synthesize the intron-free cDNA.

To put it much more simply, there is nothing that a 6-year-old would consider “invented” about the patentable cDNA. It is nothing more than the messenger RNA flipped into a DNA sequence that omits unnecessary elements that nature already excluded. The sequence that codes the proteins is just as naturally occurring as the original DNA itself, which the court held couldn’t be patented because it was naturally occurring. The distinction is, to put it bluntly, a lawyer’s distinction, not a scientist’s.

(by Noah Feldman, a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard)

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

#68

Post by acjohnson55 » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:23 PM UTC

michael_miller wrote: post #61

eldude wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I know you meant well with your comment, but in general, it's best to avoid well-actually comments. This is one of Hacker School's core rules; they elaborate on why it's a good idea to avoid these types of comments at https://www.hackerschool.com/manual .

Isn't this reply sort of a meta-well-actually comment in itself?

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

#69

Post by Kliment » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:26 PM UTC

daughart wrote: post #49

shmerl wrote: post #34

Idiotic decision. DNA should not be patentable.

What if you engineer a completely novel protein, with novel regulatory sequences, for a novel function? Should you be unable to patent such an invention?

Honestly, no, it should not be patentable. This is entirely equivalent to a software patent.

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

#70

Post by joshmlewis » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:26 PM UTC

michael_miller wrote: post #61

eldude wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I know you meant well with your comment, but in general, it's best to avoid well-actually comments. This is one of Hacker School's core rules; they elaborate on why it's a good idea to avoid these types of comments at https://www.hackerschool.com/manual .

What you linked to wasn't the HN 'manual'?

In the actual guidelines found here: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html it doesn't say anything about well actually comments. It says be smart in your discussions and don't just get opinionated, it says to present facts and actually address the thing that you're arguing over. I believe having proper arguments and discussions is one of the core things HN is about. It lets people learn and see other points of view. If you don't like a comment just downvote it.