No Gene Patents

[Mattus]

Should I patent the rain the dirt the clouds perhaps.
My finger, your eye... a dog?

To state the obvious; none of these were previously unknown and only discovered through groundbreaking, innovative and brilliant scientific breakthroughs.

No one even knew there was a BRCA. Let the intrepid explorer stake thier claim. Think of them as modern the Lang Hancocks of science.

[Rorschach]

Should I patent the rain the dirt the clouds perhaps.
My finger, your eye... a dog?

To state the obvious; none of these were previously unknown and only discovered through groundbreaking, innovative and brilliant scientific breakthroughs.

No one even knew there was a BRCA. Let the intrepid explorer stake thier claim. Think of them as modern the Lang Hancocks of science.

now now... lets not be pedantic about the point being made.

Even explorers cannot patent the ocean or desert they explore now can they.
Patents are for inventions not naturally occurring discoveries.

[Rorschach]

Should I patent the rain the dirt the clouds perhaps.
My finger, your eye... a dog?

To state the obvious; none of these were previously unknown and only discovered through groundbreaking, innovative and brilliant scientific breakthroughs.

No one even knew there was a BRCA. Let the intrepid explorer stake thier claim. Think of them as modern the Lang Hancocks of science.

now now... lets not be pedantic about the point being made.

Even explorers cannot patent the ocean or desert they explore now can they.
Patents are for inventions not naturally occurring discoveries.

As I said previously... the article covers your beef.

[Mattus]

As I said previously... the article covers your beef.

Oh okay. I guess I'll go and have a conversation with the article then.

[AnimalMother]

Mattus does seem to have a point.

Perhaps the law should provide for a new category of intellectual property to cover these case. But honestly, I have no idea how that would work.

[Rorschach]

Mattus does seem to have a point.

Perhaps the law should provide for a new category of intellectual property to cover these case. But honestly, I have no idea how that would work.

He might be making a point... like the Sun is in the sky... but like I said The article does cover it.

"The US Supreme Court has held up the essence of the argument we have put forward in our case, that genes are a naturally occurring substance that are not patentable," she said.

She said final submissions on the appeal were due today, so the firm would be able to refer to the US decision.

The central question for the justices in the case, Association for Molecular Pathology versus Myriad Genetics, was whether isolated genes are "products of nature" that may not be patented or "human-made inventions" eligible for patent protection.

Myriad's discovery of the precise location and sequence of the genes at issue, BRCA1 and BRCA2, did not qualify, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.

"A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," he said. "It is undisputed that Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

"Groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the criteria" for patent eligibility, he said.

But manipulating a gene to create something not found in nature, Justice Thomas added, is an invention eligible for patent protection.

He also left the door open for other ways for companies to profit from their research.They may patent the methods of isolating genes, he said.

What is necessary and right, is that companies not be allowed to patent naturally occurring things hence owning them and all rights associated with them, preventing others from doing research, creating products, or finding cures for diseases... etc, etc, etc because of the patent and its holder.

[IQS.RLOW]

Then perhaps they need to treat discoveries such as these in a similar way to the states mineral rights? Naturally occurring substances but with royalties paid to the discoverer instead of the state...but then it would need to be on a global scale. Or perhaps have the govts fund and acquire all gene discovery so it becomes what it actually is...communal property

Of course there are many, many holes in that...but there still need to be something done or we might see a couple of scenarios occurring
1. Funding will be shutdown quicker than blowjobs after a mans wedding
2. The processes for finding rogue genes will be patented

It certainly needs another form of protecting research and investment.

[Chard]

No, funding won't dry up at all for genetic research. All this decision means is you cannot patent naturally occurring genes. You can still patent therapies and and drugs based on those genes or sequences.

[Chard]

It seems you're being deliberately obtuse.

No, I'm going with what BO said, which is "How can you possibly patent nature?" If you cannot patent anything natural then you cannot patent anything at all as any material or process you invent is based off of natural materials or phenomena.

There is a clear distinction between things that occur in nature without human planning, and things that have never occurred in nature but are the products of intentional human design.

If you make that distinction then it changes everything entirely. BO made no such distinction, but goo on you for moving goal posts.

If you can't understand the difference between a horse's legs and a V-8 engine, I don't think we have common ground for communication.

A better analogy would be a horse's heart vs an v-8. So now I know you suck at science AND making analogies.

[boxy]

There needs to be some balance in these things. No one should be able to gain exclusive rights over a naturally occurring thing simply by being the first to find it. The logical extension of being able to patent genes, is that there will be a rush to discover, define and patent everything, and suing anyone who uses that gene in the future to treat anything.

Personal Audio has already extracted millions from some of the biggest tech names in the world, even though it does not actually make any products of its own.

Critics say the company is a patent troll, part of a massive legal problem costing US companies billions of dollars.

There is something broken in the concept of patents, when something like this can happen. The world has moved on since patents were first legislated.