Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented
washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented
1–10 of 58 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented
#2Interesting contrast to the patenting of crop genes by Monsanto: their crop cross-pollinates with yours, and now they own the seeds of your crop!
It's a good thing that the SC struck this down, since it could lead to really weird claims over humans. Imagine if someone receiving patented genes in a treatment absorbed some of that information into their own genetic makeup. Then when they had children, the company could claim that the child contains their intellectual property.
Might be a good sci-fi novel.
Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented
#3I don't know whether to smile at this decision, or frown because it took the Supreme Court to strike this down. I think I'll smile at the continuation of recent trend of the Supreme Court benchslapping the Federal Circuit, and slowing the unintended consequences of a specialized appeals court.
Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented
#4Interesting contrast to the patenting of crop genes by Monsanto: their crop cross-pollinates with yours, and now they own the seeds of your crop! It's a good thing that the SC struck this down, since it could lead to really weird claims over humans. Imagine if someone receiving patented genes in a treatment absorbed some of that information into their own genetic makeup. Then when they had children, the company could…
No, that's not remotely plausible even if Myriad had won. They had patented isolated DNA. Biological processes such as human reproduction were always free and clear. Furthermore, your characterization of Monsanto's patents doesn't seem accurate.
Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented
#5Interesting contrast to the patenting of crop genes by Monsanto: their crop cross-pollinates with yours, and now they own the seeds of your crop! It's a good thing that the SC struck this down, since it could lead to really weird claims over humans. Imagine if someone receiving patented genes in a treatment absorbed some of that information into their own genetic makeup. Then when they had children, the company could…
I'm not entirely convinced this ruling is a win...making cDNA patentable is, from my view in academic research, not a good thing. I also don't understand why the Court is under the impression that cDNA is something magical that is synthesized originally by some complex thing (OK, it's complex but not groundbreaking and has been used for a long time now).
cDNA is synthesized by reverse transcription of mRNA, which already contains the exons yet for some reason the court finds that "exon only" DNA is patentable. There are millions of cDNA fragments with a good proportion of known relevance. There's nothing inherently "unnatural" about creating cDNA using reverse transcription; it's how retroviruses like HIV work!
Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented
#6It's ridiculous that a patent system exists that would allow someone to even try to patent the result of billions of years of evolution.
Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented
#7Yeah this is actually a pretty poor news source (hopefully it will be updated).
For more comprehesive coverage info see http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/06/13/supreme-...
A crucial point is the cDNA is patentable, which still makes very little sense.
Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented
#8Interesting contrast to the patenting of crop genes by Monsanto: their crop cross-pollinates with yours, and now they own the seeds of your crop! It's a good thing that the SC struck this down, since it could lead to really weird claims over humans. Imagine if someone receiving patented genes in a treatment absorbed some of that information into their own genetic makeup. Then when they had children, the company could…
I'm not entirely convinced this ruling is a win...making cDNA patentable is, from my view in academic research, not a good thing. I also don't understand why the Court is under the impression that cDNA is something magical that is synthesized originally by some complex thing (OK, it's complex but not groundbreaking and has been used for a long time now). cDNA is synthesized by reverse transcription of mRNA, which alr…
Not arguing but, fyi: the patent was not on the process of creating cDNA, it was on the product -- they patented the cDNA itself, not the process for creating it. It is a composition of matter patent.
Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented
#9Anyone that has used a genetic testing service has seen that they test you for hundreds of genetic disorders and traits. If not for patents on genes they could test for thousands.
For example, the test at 23andme was only able to test for a couple BRCA1 mutations because most of them are patented. My wife (whose grandmother died at 29 from breast cancer) had to pay $1,500 to get the test done because of these stupid patents.
Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not entirely convinced this ruling is a win...making cDNA patentable is, from my view in academic research, not a good thing. I also don't understand why the Court is under the impression that cDNA is something magical that is synthesized originally by some complex thing (OK, it's complex but not groundbreaking and has been used for a long time now). cDNA is synthesized by reverse transcription of mRNA, which alr…
Not arguing but, fyi: the patent was not on the process of creating cDNA, it was on the product -- they patented the cDNA itself, not the process for creating it. It is a composition of matter patent.
But the information in the cDNA already exists in the mRNA. The justices seemed to argue that removing the introns was the step that makes cDNA patentable, but the introns are already removed from an mRNA molecule that is about to be translated into a protein.