Skip to comments.SUPREME COURT: Big Biotech Can't Patent Your DNA
Posted on 06/13/2013 7:43:51 AM PDT by Perdogg
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that our natural DNA can't be patented, in what the influential SCOTUSBlog called "a significant patent ruling for the biotechnology industry."
The high court did stike some middle ground by ruling that synthetic DNA can be patented.
"A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA [synthetic DNA] is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring," according to the court ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Great! Now I just have to rely on twelve Low Info Voters on a jury to decide whether my purloined DNA is mine or Memorex.
Interesting ruling. Think their logic is flawed, though. If DNA cannot be patented because it is nature, then cDNA should not be either. cDNA is just the DNA version of the mRNA which is also nature.
Pretty much 9-0 on everything today.
Patenting DNA is a stupid idea. DNA was not created by a human. Processes can be patented. Inventions can be patented.
They can’t patent it. But neither can you. So if you discover they’re using it you’re SOL.
Great, so we can keep our genes but all our data belongs to the NSA! Wait until someone makes the argument that DNA is merely a storage medium - containing genetic instruction which will need to be probed for national security purposes.
soylent green is people - you can’t patent it
They can’t patent it, but the Supremes also just ruled last week, including Thomas surprisingly, that the law can swab your DNA and store it right along with your NSA files.
I can think of few things more "prior art" than natural DNA. If you have a special process which you can do with that DNA then patent it, but you can't patent the DNA itself.
That's not exactly new law ~ rather like the dispute over the patent on automobiles by George B. Selden. Henry Ford beat him like wet rug.
According to the decision, they did not since Myriad did not submit for that. From the ruling:
First, there are no method claims before this Court. Had Myriad created an innovative method of manipulating genes while searching for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, it could possibly have sought a method pat- ent. But the processes used by Myriad to isolate DNAwere well understood by geneticists at the time of Myriads patents were well understood, widely used, and fairlyuniform insofar as any scientist engaged in the search fora gene would likely have utilized a similar approach, 702 F. Supp. 2d, at 202203, and are not at issue in this case.
Still, he could have gotten a patent for a process ~ but the USSC isn’t about to give somebody else on the very same genes they got in their bodies ~
The down side of the ruling is that Pharms will now be pumping us full of unnatural DNA to cure diseases rather that natural DNA. Who knows what the long term consequences will be.
Hey look, a rock! I patent rocks so no one else can use them.
DNA is data. When the data has certain characteristics, it can be protected as intellectual property. Same for the data stream that makes a music recording or photograph, or a computer program.
Without reading the decision it looks like they allowed a patent for a process
Sure, if you rearrange it to produce something new and useful. But if it just sitting out there in the wild you can't claim it as your own. Some of those trying to patent DNA sequences are like my pet cat who picked up a bird that had knocked itself out on a window and carried it around like she was a mighty hunter.
Wow. The court just had DNA all over the place this session.
And Bill Clinton wasn’t even on the docket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.