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]

#51

Post by dnautics » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 4:50 PM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #41

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 s…

The process of making cDNA libraries (with and without robots) has long been solved. Usually in order to get a patent you need to prove "usefulness" which is not really automatable.

And if you want to read my writeup (which is slightly geared toward explaining the biology from simple first principles, http://www.indysci.org/mission/onpatenting.html)

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

#52

Post by cantankerous » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 4:50 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #46

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…

This should give Myriad a new incentive to develop less expensive tests for this gene. They should already have a head start.

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

#53

Post by andre » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 4:53 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #46

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…

Relevant: Idaho farmers sue Monsanto over GMO wheat

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/06/12/2613756/idaho-farme...

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

#54

Post by 1337biz » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 4:54 PM UTC

jweese wrote: post #5

mpyne wrote: post #3

Unanimous 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…

I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief.

I wish more public officials would show this kind of honesty, esp. those voting on new laws and regulations. I am waiting for the first politician to come foward with a "I have no idea of this stuff, can anyone of my constituents explain to me how and why to vote on that" message.

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

#55

Post by craigyk » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 4:54 PM UTC

While the second part is a bit disappointing. Does that mean if you manage to successfully isolate a natural version of a patented cDNA, then that patent becomes effectively invalid?

In practice this might not be the hardest thing to do. Do you like someone's engineered version of a gene? Then transform some randomized libraries into cell cultures (or add mutagens) and keep fishing until you extract a "natural" copy that is the same as the patented cDNA.

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

#56

Post by eldude » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 4:56 PM UTC

Michael Crichton's novel "Next"[1] was a fantastic exploration of the implications of such issues being brought up here like: liability when the infringing patents are in you, in animals, in human-animal hybrids capable of human-level intelligence, and how the world deals with life when Man plays god.

Another excellent book on the ethics of bio-engineering and patentability is the true story, "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks."[2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_(novel) [2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Immortal-Life-Henrietta-Lacks/dp/1...

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

#57

Post by craigyk » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 4:56 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.

I take this ruling as protection from infringement if a synthetic sequence happens to emerge naturally.

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

#58

Post by albertzeyer » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 4:58 PM UTC

Isn't all synthetic DNA based on natural DNA?

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

#59

Post by moron4hire » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:02 PM UTC

rgbrenner wrote: post #50

andre wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

assuming the parents understand the contract in which they are entering.

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

#60

Post by takluyver » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:12 PM UTC

benjamincburns wrote: post #29

At 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…

I think the patents there relate to the combination and use of genes, not the genes themselves, so it's not.

The famous case about that didn't actually hinge on whether GM crops had turned up on a farm unexpectedly, but on whether the farmer had then deliberately selected seed from the GM plants to replant the next year's crop.