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

171–174 of 174 posts

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

#171

Post by rcthompson »

dekhn wrote: post #156
rcthompson wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my knowledge, the BRCA1 mature mRNA sequence has not been shown to be reverse-transcribed during any part of the life cycle of any retrovirus.

given that retroviruses are sloppy, basically any any all genes have at some time been reverse transcribed.

True, but that's a tenuous argument. You can't prove that a particular gene has been reverse transcribed and that its cDNA is therefore a naturally-occurring product, unless that cDNA is essential to the virus' life cycle. To invalidate the patent, you would probably have to actually observe the natural reverse transcription of the complete sequence.

In any case, the original point I was trying to make was that the natural occurrence of the mRNA does not make the cDNA a naturally occurring product.

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

#172

Post by rcthompson »

mokus wrote: post #77
rcthompson wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This really sounds like hair splitting to me. Along the lines of saying "well, your software patent is for a program that is stored on a GMR disk platter. Mine's stored in NAND flash, and that's never been done before!" If the sequence is logically equivalent but stored on a different medium, how is that novel? The invention of the new medium or new techniques for transcribing between media may be, but the sequence i…

Not exactly. DNA and RNA are structurally only slightly different, but functionally, in the context of a biological system, they are very different. A technical analogy might be RAM vs disk.

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

#173

Post by dekhn »

dnautics wrote: post #170
dekhn wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and yet, existence proofs demonstrate you are wrong. Again, re-read the section on virus tumor oncogenes in The Biology of Cancer; pretty much everythign we know about oncogenes came from this physical mechanism.

what? Most oncogene duplication comes from chromosomal abnormalities, or occasionally retrotransposon capture. Completely different mechanism from reverse transcriptase amplification. Occasionally retroviruses will incorporate themselves near or inside an oncogene and activate (and sometimes copy them) but again, that is not the same mechanism as nonspecific gene duplication, and will almost certainly not produce the…

Yes, and what I'm demonstrating is there is likely prior art in the form of cDNA molecules identical to the Myriad molecule that have existed in cells at some point in the past. That fact, which SCOTUS convenient ignored, is sufficient to override the idea that cDNA molecules can be patented.

Anyway, your comment about oncogenes again shows you haven't read Biology of Cancer. if you read the first four chapters, it works out the history through which we worked out the understand of oncogenes. And the history is different from what we know now to be the prevalent mechanisms. The use of tumor viruses, which is nicely explained, demonstrates that scientists had already described the phenomenon I'm cited in the mid-1970's. That phenomenon wasn't really followed up on after the mid-80s, when people got better mechanisms and a larger understanding of cancer. But if you go back to the tumor virus literature and really understand it at a fundamental level, you have to acknowledge that BRCA cDNAs identical to the Myriad patent have almost certainly existed in both free (nucleoplasm) and integrated forms in at least one cell in the past. Whether that cell survived, is irrelevant.

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

#174

Post by dnautics »

dekhn wrote: post #173
dnautics wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what? Most oncogene duplication comes from chromosomal abnormalities, or occasionally retrotransposon capture. Completely different mechanism from reverse transcriptase amplification. Occasionally retroviruses will incorporate themselves near or inside an oncogene and activate (and sometimes copy them) but again, that is not the same mechanism as nonspecific gene duplication, and will almost certainly not produce the…

Yes, and what I'm demonstrating is there is likely prior art in the form of cDNA molecules identical to the Myriad molecule that have existed in cells at some point in the past. That fact, which SCOTUS convenient ignored, is sufficient to override the idea that cDNA molecules can be patented. Anyway, your comment about oncogenes again shows you haven't read Biology of Cancer. if you read the first four chapters, it w…

yeah, I said I hadn't read it, about 6 comments up. Also, BRCA isn't an oncogene, it's a tumor suppresor gene.

Finally, if you think an existence proof is going to break a patent, I wish you luck in your future pursuits in life.

Post reply on HN