71–80 of 174 posts
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.
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 .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to appreciate his dedication to rigor.
He's consistent, which is about the only nice thing I'd want to say about him.
He voted that the police should not be permitted to take your DNA just because you were arrested.
He voted that government should not be permitted to take your property and give it to another private entity because it will generate higher taxes.
He voted that the police should not be permitted to enter your property with drug sniffing dogs without a warrant.
He voted that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's consistent, which is about the only nice thing I'd want to say about him.
Your ignorance is staggering. He voted that the police should not be permitted to take your DNA just because you were arrested. He voted that government should not be permitted to take your property and give it to another private entity because it will generate higher taxes. He voted that the police should not be permitted to enter your property with drug sniffing dogs without a warrant. He voted that authorities sca…
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.
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 itself isn't.
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 ‘s…
In the long run, Myriad is hosed because they no longer own the sequence, including analysis. Any diagnostic not using reverse transcription of the mRNA does not violate Myriad's patent. This includes synthesis of any non-cDNA polymer, such as XNA.
Darn, well there goes my plan to patent myself and require that my wife buy a license before she can bear my children.
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.