Skip to comments.
SUPREME COURT: Big Biotech Can't Patent Your DNA
BI ^
| June 13, 2013
Posted on 06/13/2013 7:43:51 AM PDT by Perdogg
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
1
posted on
06/13/2013 7:43:51 AM PDT
by
Perdogg
To: Perdogg
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.
To: Perdogg
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.
3
posted on
06/13/2013 7:46:40 AM PDT
by
Rokurota
To: Buckeye McFrog
Pretty much 9-0 on everything today.
4
posted on
06/13/2013 7:48:12 AM PDT
by
Perdogg
(Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
To: Perdogg
Patenting DNA is a stupid idea. DNA was not created by a human. Processes can be patented. Inventions can be patented.
5
posted on
06/13/2013 7:57:18 AM PDT
by
I want the USA back
(If I Pi$$ed off just one liberal today my mission has been accomplished.)
To: Buckeye McFrog
They can’t patent it. But neither can you. So if you discover they’re using it you’re SOL.
To: Perdogg
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.
7
posted on
06/13/2013 8:05:43 AM PDT
by
RobertClark
(My shrink just killed himself - he blamed me in his note!)
To: Perdogg
soylent green is people - you can’t patent it
8
posted on
06/13/2013 8:08:07 AM PDT
by
Revelation 911
(hump scratching n'er do well.....all strung out on chicken wings and venison jerky)
To: Rokurota
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.
To: Perdogg
Hey look, a rock! I patent rocks so no one else can use them.
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.
10
posted on
06/13/2013 8:14:40 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(This message has been recorded but not approved by Obama's StasiNet. Read it at your peril.)
To: Rokurota
Without reading the decision it looks like they allowed a patent for a process ~ after all, cDNA needs a process. A second process would be x'DNA; another y''DNA, etc.
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.
11
posted on
06/13/2013 8:16:30 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(Git yer Red STATE Arm Bands here - $29.95 - NOT SOLD IN STORES - TAX FREE)
To: muawiyah
... it looks like they allowed a patent for a processAccording 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.
12
posted on
06/13/2013 8:24:11 AM PDT
by
Rokurota
To: Rokurota
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 ~
13
posted on
06/13/2013 8:39:13 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(Git yer Red STATE Arm Bands here - $29.95 - NOT SOLD IN STORES - TAX FREE)
To: Revelation 911
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.
14
posted on
06/13/2013 8:43:44 AM PDT
by
aimhigh
(Guns do not kill people. Abortion kills people.)
To: muawiyah
Agreed that they could get a patent for a process if they had one in this case. My qualm is with the notion, if I read it correctly, that cDNA by itself is patentable. The methods for producing cDNA are pretty standard and Myriad did not use a new method to create it.
15
posted on
06/13/2013 8:44:20 AM PDT
by
Rokurota
To: KarlInOhio
Hey look, a rock! I patent rocks so no one else can use them.
Arrange the rocks into an particular shape (or carve on into a shape), and you can possibly copyright the design, trademark it (if the design is used to identify the source of commercial goods or services), or patent it if it provides some new, useful, and non-obvious function.
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.
16
posted on
06/13/2013 8:51:25 AM PDT
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Universal Background Check -> Registration -> Confiscation -> Oppression -> Extermination)
To: muawiyah
Without reading the decision it looks like they allowed a patent for a process
And the product produced by that process (say, a medicine) can then be protected.
17
posted on
06/13/2013 8:52:24 AM PDT
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Universal Background Check -> Registration -> Confiscation -> Oppression -> Extermination)
To: Atlas Sneezed
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. 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.
18
posted on
06/13/2013 9:10:11 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(This message has been recorded but not approved by Obama's StasiNet. Read it at your peril.)
To: Revelation 911
"soylent green is people - you cant patent it". Maybe not, but they can feed it to the FEMA camp residents.
To: A'elian' nation
Wow. The court just had DNA all over the place this session.
And Bill Clinton wasn’t even on the docket.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson