Surprise: Justice Department Says Isolated Genes Should Not Be Patentable
from the didn't-see-that-coming dept
Well here's a surprise. In the appeal of the ruling from earlier this year that genes are not patentable, the Justice Department has decided to weigh in with an amicus brief, changing the government's longstanding position on gene patents. The government's official position is now that isolated genes should not be patentable, though it does suggest that "manipulated" DNA could be patentable. They basically make the argument that merely isolating a gene isn't an invention, which makes perfect sense. What's interesting is that the Justice Department's position appears to disagree with the USPTO's stated position until now. There must have been a hell of a political fight within the administration to get this through... Anyway, the full filing is after the jump.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gene patents, justice department, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Governmental Common Sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW am I missing something?
Not that big a deal but I don't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BTW am I missing something?
Yeah, just found a bug. Moved it above the jump so that it can be seen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BTW am I missing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unbelievable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...which makes perfect sense..."
Want to explain why the contrary "makes perfect sense"? It seems to me your anti-patent bias is leading you to shoot from the hip again.
Your friend, Anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...which makes perfect sense..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...which makes perfect sense..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "...which makes perfect sense..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...which makes perfect sense..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "...which makes perfect sense..."
Meant to say does NOT equal a gene, sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...which makes perfect sense..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...which makes perfect sense..."
Your argument in my mind sounds like, "well, if one takes water, and removes the oxygen from it, the oxygen should be patentable."
A gene sequence, as the name implies, is still made up of naturally occurring genetic material; e.g. NOT material created by the patent filer. (again, to state the obvious, isolating part of substance is NOT equal to creating the substance).
The process of isolation may be patentable, but not the material.
Am I missing something here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...which makes perfect sense..."
The US gov't appears to disagree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...which makes perfect sense..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "...which makes perfect sense..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
I'm fairly sure DNA occurs naturally.
Now, a specific process to isolate those genes may be patentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents on life forms goes back to light beer yeasts, backfilled with 'plant breeders rights'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents on life forms goes back to light beer yeasts, backfilled with 'plant breeders rights'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
incentives
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]