Skip to main content

View Diary: Supremes: You can't patent DNA, but ... (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So do you think, many cDNAs for retroviral (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    avsp

    genes are now open to challenge under 101?

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 12:19:41 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Only if they were discovered and not (7+ / 0-)

      invented.  

      Take a naturally-occurring sequence, edit it, and then tack some stuff on the ends?  Patentable.

      Take a naturally-occurring cDNA sequence and duplicate it?  Not patentable, though the method of duplication may be.

      Astonishingly enough, this ruling actually makes a massive amount of sense from the viewpoint of science and reality.  

      •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, avsp

        That's my understanding too. But the non-natural molecules still have to meet all the other criteria; novel, useful,  non-obviousness, etc.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 01:06:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, and I'm not entirely sure that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eyesbright, TiaRachel, avsp

          said molecules would pass the non-obviousness test, since -- if you're a scientist who works with DNA and understands how this stuff works -- the structure of the cDNA given any DNA strand is apparently pretty darned obvious.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site