Appeals Court Says Genes Are Patentable, Because They're 'Separate' From Your DNA
from the chop-off-a-finger-and-patent-it dept
Well, this is unfortunate. We were quite happy with US district court judge Robert Sweet last year for making it clear that isolated genes are not patentable material in the Myriad Genetics case. This was one of those annoying patent situations where so many people had just assumed that genes were patentable for decades, without a single court testing that theory out. So industries were built up around the idea that genes could be patented. Thankfully, Sweet didn't let that bother him in pointing out that gene patents "are directed to a law of nature and were therefore improperly granted."Of course, as expected, Myriad appealed, and even the Justice Department weighed in, saying genes shouldn't be patentable. However, the results of the appeal are in... and the Federal Circuit appeals court (CAFC) has reversed the lower court and said that patenting genes is just fine. The reasoning is bordering on ridiculous. The court effectively states that because isolated genes are isolated rather than a part of the full DNA strand, they are not "found in nature."
It is undisputed that Myriad�s claimed isolated DNAs exist in a distinctive chemical form--as distinctive chemical molecules--from DNAs in the human body, i.e., native DNA. Native DNA exists in the body as one of forty-six large, contiguous DNA molecules. Each DNA molecule is itself an integral part of a larger structural complex, a chromosome. In each chromosome, the DNA molecule is packaged around histone proteins into a structure called chromatin, which in turn is packaged into the chromosomal structure....Later, it reiterates that separating out these genes make them somehow "different" and not a part of nature:
Isolated DNA, in contrast, is a free-standing portion of a native DNA molecule, frequently a single gene. Isolated DNA has been cleaved (i.e., had covalent bonds in its backbone chemically severed) or synthesized to consist of just a fraction of a naturally occurring DNA molecule.
In this case, the claimed isolated DNA molecules do not exist as in nature within a physical mixture to be purified. They have to be chemically cleaved from their chemical combination with other genetic materials. In other words, in nature, isolated DNAs are covalently bonded to such other materials. Thus, when cleaved, an isolated DNA molecule is not a purified form of a natural material, but a distinct chemical entity. In fact, some forms of isolated DNA require no purification at all, because DNAs can be chemically synthesized directly as isolated molecules.Basically, they seem to be arguing that because a severed finger is not attached to a hand, the finger is not naturally occurring, and, thus, is patentable. Think about that. The dissenting judge in this ruling used a slightly less gruesome analogy, saying that the majority was basically saying that while a tree occurs in nature, snapping a leaf off the tree makes that leaf patentable.
The one good thing about the ruling is that it still rejects parts of Myriad's patents, but for other reasons, not because they're unpatentable parts of nature. The dissenting opinion from Judge Bryson (starting on page 88 of the ruling) is well worth reading. It starts out by attacking the problem with common sense, saying that if you were to ask someone if genes should be patented, they would answer, "Of course not. Patents are for inventions. A human gene is not an invention." But then Bryson goes on to discuss the more specific points raised by Myriad. First, he points out that Myriad didn't even really "invent" the key parts here:
At the outset, it is important to identify the inventive contribution underlying Myriad�s patents. Myriad was not the first to map a BRCA gene to its chromosomal location. That discovery was made by a team of researchers led by Dr. Mary-Claire King.... And Myriad did not invent a new method of nucleotide sequencing. Instead, it applied known sequencing techniques to identify the nucleotide order of the BRCA genes. Myriad�s discovery of those sequences entailed difficult work, and the identified sequences have had important applications in the fight against breast cancer. But the discovery of the sequences is an unprotectable fact, just like Dr. King�s discovery of the chromosomal location of the BRCA1 gene.From there, Judge Bryson points out that an isolated gene clearly is a part of nature, and thus unpatentable:
Myriad is claiming the genes themselves, which appear in nature on the chromosomes of living human beings. The only material change made to those genes from their natural state is the change that is necessarily incidental to the extraction of the genes from the environment in which they are found in nature. While the process of extraction is no doubt difficult, and may itself be patentable, the isolated genes are not materially different from the native genes. In this respect, the genes are analogous to the �new mineral discovered in the earth,� or the �new plant found in the wild� that the Supreme Court referred to in Chakrabarty. It may be very difficult to extract the newly found mineral or to find, extract, and propagate the newly discovered plant. But that does not make those naturally occurring items the products of invention.This case is far from over. It seems likely that CAFC will quickly be asked to rehear the case en banc (with the full slate of judges in the court, rather than just a panel of three), and after that it will likely go to the Supreme Court. Still, it's unfortunate that CAFC went this way, and hopefully a later ruling rejects this momentary lapse of reason.
The same is true for human genes.
In the meantime, it'll be important to pay close attention to what happens in the "sister" case to this one, Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo Collaborative Services, in which there's a question of whether or not diagnostic tests can be patentable. In that case, like this one, CAFC said diagnostic tests are patentable, and that case has now moved on to the Supreme Court, which will likely hear the case in the fall. That may be a precursor to the final result in this case.
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: brca1, brca2, cafc, dna, gene patents, patents
Companies: aclu, myriad genetics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
DNA, with Logic
A gene (or, piece of DNA) is patentable because it isn't the whole DNA strand. Which implies that discrete segments of genetic code that do not constitute the whole of the genome involved are therefore not inherently "found in nature." So, what the fuck happened to the RNA and/or protein that many of these genes code for? Hell, HIV is a RNA retrovirus. Can I patent the DNA mirror image that hijacks lymphocytes? Did ANY of these judges EVER bother to think beyond "that's one of those evy-dency acronyms we like to use a lot [/Shatner], and it can't be natural because we use it, like (a) tool(s)" while reversing the logical lower court ruling?
Why is DNA suddenly being considered in a vacuum? I'm pretty sure there's a bit more to it than "we have DNA, and cells 'just work'[/sarc]."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DNA, with Logic
You can see it in many judicial opinions, a judge states that if he were to rule this way, this undesirable thing may happen. But what is desirable is the exclusive prerogative of a legislature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DNA, with Logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so how long before we start patenting actual DNA and complete the slide down the slippery slope of patent despair? (oh you can't marry them without permission/license to do so otherwise you'd be infringing on their family DNA patent)
hey it sounds stupid and crazy but so does what they are trying to do now and when you give a mouse a cookie.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slavery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Genes are patentable -> Genes are separate from DNA
therefore,
Genes are NOT separate from DNA -> Genes are NOT patentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trolling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See Monsanto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can image a blond in the future being sued because "We have the patent for blond hair, and you used the gene without properly licensing it".....
Guess blond jokes will get a bit more....interesting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I never knew that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The idea that biotech companies are suing farmers for accidental contamination is a lie perpetrated by the anti-GMO crowd. Such lawsuits are not allowed under US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The link provided by DCX2 says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt. com/articles/20091214/0856327337.shtml
http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/5529
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.05.pdf
http://www .knowthelies.com/?q=node/5529
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091214/0856327337.shtml
Hopef ully this goes through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fingers and hand
I am now attempting to patent human excrement, because it is obviously not found in nature and is separate from the intestinal system producing it. Therefore, in the future, I will be rich, rich, rich from these giant mountains of crap! Ah hahahahahahahaha! *ominous thunder crash*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fingers and hand
You will give a whole new meaning to the smell of success!
I think you may well end up a spokesman for the Tea Party, for its your kind of thinking taken to an extreme that has these bozos playing with themselves instead of minding the business of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1). After transcription to RNA, the translation machinery that is used to make proteins during gene expression chemically isolates a gene. That is not to say all the covalent bonds to the larger DNA molecule are cleaved, but that the chemical behavior of the DNA fragment that is a gene is isolated.
2). the existence in nature of restriction enzymes that do cleave DNA molecules at specific sites.
3). Recombination, both meiotic and mitotic, on the same chromosome. This most commonly involves groups of genes but recombination where a single gene is involved is theoretically possible.
4). Transposons. I don't know enough about genetics to know if a single-gene transposon has been discovered. Regardless, it shows that a DNA molecule is not the unbroken set of genes as characterized in this ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To you I leave my DNA.
This is my immortality - for none other shall own it than you, your children and their children ad infinitum.
The car, land, house, money and other mere material trappings of which I have been temporary custodian are also your to use as you will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 29th, 2011 @ 11:37pm
Your parents were able to do so because their work (you) was transformative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about this:
Can one find medical care or health care insurance that does not have a clause which states 'Hey - you give us the right to do with your DNA as we see fit'.
If all policies have such a clause - can one thusly smackdown mandatory healthcare for stepping on your rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unconscionable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the fuck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I need a license now to Fuck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pharma will lose money on medications if you procreate with a partner also carrying these healthy genes, and as such you will have to pay a licencing fee (ransferred to your child when it reaches maturity) as well as a one-time administrative fee in order to legally procreate.
So yeah, licence to fuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What this will mean is that the rest of the world will be able to achieve benefits from innovation in a quick and efficient manner, whereas the USofA, as it is in most technical areas nowadays, will be embroiled in a litigious quagmire of unfathomable depth.
Good luck having Any Gene patents allowed outside of the USA, and most governments around the world wont give 2 craps whether they are breaching so called international patent diplomacies/rules by not applying them. And the USA's normal stick waving threats of economic sanctions are seriously not going to work much if at all anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The first paragraph should read
I'd really like to know how the US Pharma Corps are going to deal with this when THE REST OF THE WORLD considers any parts of human DNA, be it a subset of gene[s], or the whole, as absolutely NON Patentable since the obviousness is that they are part of Nature.
I blame it on being a Saturday here ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This article is misleading
With that background in mind, this article misleads further by not explaining that it is really a method that is in dispute, not an "isolated DNA" molecule. I understand that without considerable knowledge in molecular genetics, it may hard to parse through all the terminology in the case. I have never heard anyone refer to any type of DNA as "isolated DNA". I suspect that at some point in the case, a lawyer invented that terminology which is why this is confusing to many people.
I did some quick searching online but could not determine specifically what "isolated DNA" represents. I'm assuming it represents cDNA of the BRCA genes but I'm not entire sure about that. While cDNA itself is naturally occuring, and is commonly used in a many laboratories for various types of genetic analysis, I do not understand why the court would get so hung up on it in this case. Rather, I would have guessed the court would have focused on Myriad's knowledge of the mutations (single nucleotide polymorphisms) that can indicate a higher risk of developing breast cancer. Perhaps Myriad's lawyers thought that by focusing on the cDNA/"isolated DNA" terminology would raise their chances of a victory.
I do not think that Myriad's win in this case is anything to be alarmed at. Their research has had far reaching implications in breast cancer research and they deserve to be rewarded for their work. I believe the main problem with patents and/or cases like this is that the people (patent officers or judges) while highly educated in their respective fields lack knowledge in highly specialized applications like this. A perfect example of a lack of knowledge is when Apple sued Microsoft for copying their windows GUI. At the time of the trial, most people, including the presiding judge, were very unaware of how computers worked. It was easy for MS's lawyer to convince the judge that MS Windows was different enough from Apple OS that it did not infringe. My essential argument here is that we could benefit from specialized courts/patent offices that are aware of what they are actually reviewing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is misleading
> that it is really a method that is in dispute,
> not an "isolated DNA" molecule.
It's not just a "method." It's also product-by-process claims at issue.
When protection is extended to a widget manufacturing process, often protection is extended to the widgets that come out at the end if the claims in the patent are drafted to do so.
In the United States, patentability of a product-by-process claim extends to the product itself and does not depend on its method of production.
The company was using the threat of their patent to stop others from making breast cancer genetic screening tests and to prevent physicians from using competitors' tests.
No matter what method was used to isolate the gene at issue they claimed that the tests would infringe because one necessary product -- the isolated gene, itself -- was protected under their patent under one or more claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is misleading
> that it is really a method that is in dispute,
> not an "isolated DNA" molecule.
It's not just a "method." It's also product-by-process claims at issue.
When protection is extended to a widget manufacturing process, often protection is extended to the widgets that come out at the end if the claims in the patent are drafted to do so.
In the United States, patentability of a product-by-process claim extends to the product itself and does not depend on its method of production.
The company was using the threat of their patent to stop others from making breast cancer genetic screening tests and to prevent physicians from using competitors' tests.
No matter what method was used to isolate the gene at issue they claimed that the tests would infringe because one necessary product -- the isolated gene, itself -- was protected under their patent under one or more claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is misleading
If this is true, then it's a matter between Penn and Myriad. I don't see why an entire new class of patents needs to be created with far-reaching implications just because two groups of scientists are throwing a hissy fit about which group was being profitable with the genes first. Ideally, if both parties can prove that they discovered the same method independently, then it should be a non-issue. You are right about the terminology of "Isolated Gene". Most patents actually have no real place in being a patent, they are only made that way by having the language around them twisted about to make something that only seems related to innovation, despite if any real innovation ever took place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is misleading
No. You claim it's misleading because it doesn't bring up issues totally irrelevant to the suit that you wish to bring up.
As I understand it, Myriad sued scientists at the University of Pennsylvania for using a method that Myriad developed and patented.
Yes. But the question is whether or not it should be patentable. If, as argued, it is not patentable, then it doesn't matter that someone else used it.
I would be willing to bet that Myriad spent a considerable amount of money developing the method for detecting mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes that predispose women to breast cancer.
Meaningless. If it's not patentable, it doesn't make an ounce of difference how much time or money was spent developing. It's misleading to suggest otherwise. Patents are not for how much money were spent developing something. If that was the case, whoever spent more would get the patent. But I see no indication of that in the rules anywhere.
Therefore, it is understandable that they would like to profit of their investment.
Fallacy 1: that they would like to profit from something means they deserve a patent. I mean, seriously, that makes no sense. I'd like to profit from my work, so I automatically deserve a patent? That's ridiculous. And wrong.
Fallacy 2: The only way to profit from something is to have a patent on it? Also false.
Seriously. For you to argue my article is misleading and then spew this kind of crap...
The scientists at the Penn infringed on Myriad's patent's by using a their method and profiting off it without paying Myriad royalties.
Again, the WHOLE POINT of the lawsuit is to determine whether or not the stuff is patentable. If it's not patentable, your statements are meaningless.
None of what you're stating matters to the issue at hand: are the genes patentable.
With that background in mind, this article misleads further by not explaining that it is really a method that is in dispute, not an "isolated DNA" molecule. I understand that without considerable knowledge in molecular genetics, it may hard to parse through all the terminology in the case. I have never heard anyone refer to any type of DNA as "isolated DNA". I suspect that at some point in the case, a lawyer invented that terminology which is why this is confusing to many people.
This is a misleading bit of bullshit by people who wish to support patenting genes. They pretend that the method is separate from the gene. It is not.
I do not think that Myriad's win in this case is anything to be alarmed at. Their research has had far reaching implications in breast cancer research and they deserve to be rewarded for their work
Again, there are lots of ways to be rewarded that do not involve a patent and patents are not given just because research has implications. Honestly, can you be any more misleading in your own statements? Do you even know how the patent system works?
I believe the main problem with patents and/or cases like this is that the people (patent officers or judges) while highly educated in their respective fields lack knowledge in highly specialized applications like this.
And you appear to know nothing of the patent system. So please do not mock others for not knowing stuff.
A perfect example of a lack of knowledge is when Apple sued Microsoft for copying their windows GUI. At the time of the trial, most people, including the presiding judge, were very unaware of how computers worked. It was easy for MS's lawyer to convince the judge that MS Windows was different enough from Apple OS that it did not infringe. My essential argument here is that we could benefit from specialized courts/patent offices that are aware of what they are actually reviewing.
Your knowledge of the OS lawsuit is also lacking, but that's a tangent.
Separately, we have a specialized patent court (the one that made this ruling) and all its shown is that it's biased towards more patents all the time. It's been a disaster for innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This article is misleading
1. There were claims to isolated DNA as such.
2. There were claims to methods of detecting mutations in certain DNA.
3. There were claims to screening methods.
The court found:
1. is patentable
2. is not patentable and
3. is patentable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This article is misleading
Fully aware of that. I read the entire decision, which I also posted above. I focused only on (1) because that's the part I found to be key.
Did I imply otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This article is misleading
In any event it's a patent protectionist court doing what patent protectionist courts do. Literally you will notice that at least one judge was on board in part for keeping genes patentable literally to protect the patents the office has been issuing. So don't be too let down with the court having ruled this way, be let down that there even is such a court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the development of a robust genetic testing climate for the relevant clinical conditions; this is most clearly observed for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This constriction affects patients seeking to make genetically-informed medical decisions, health care providers offering genetic testing options, and scientists performing genetic research. In the absence of explicit facilitated access to critical genes that are under restrictive patent management, the central question of patent eligibility and whether such patents are valid will continue to be litigated. This is a period of renewed attention to the issue of patentable subject
matter in the life sciences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If corporations can patent and lock up publicly funded (as in tax payer provided for government funds) research and discovery, why not regular folks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe people need another movie but about biotech patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this symetric?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this symetric?
A gene in isolation is patentable. Which would prevent other companies from injecting the isolated gene into their plant/animal/etc..
However if it is present in DNA through natural processes then it is not isolated so the patent doesn't apply.
Which means the gene leakage Monsanto loves to crush farmers on it not covered by their patent and they can go get stuffed.
I wonder if the Judges actually considered the full ramifications of their ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this symetric?
At the point where the DNA replicates via plant -> seed that becomes a 'natural process' and Monsanto could be SOL.
This whole thing could become lottsa fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two can play that game
I'm sorry but your patents are not infringed by my pigs, as my pigs have no isolated genes. My pig's genes occur only in DNA sequences. Your patents specifically do not cover genes within DNA sequences.
In any game of dirty rules or just plain stupidity, there can always be two players. Hang these fools with their own rope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two can play that game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US judicial system is retarded
I download a piece of software, I split it in two and save it on two different DVDs/disks. That is not how it naturally appears in "nature"/"society", thus it is unique and patentable... I just created it, it's not piracy! Woot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
are us patents enforceable everywhere?
You know, it's a good thing our ancestors from the past 6000-8000 years did not have patent systems. Imagine: Fire, patented. Wheel, patented. Gravity, patented. If each discovery got held back for 20 years, then by my calculations... it would be 1352.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: are us patents enforceable everywhere?
Our major innovation is culture which relies entirely on being shared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am confused ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all mine!
Ditto for kids. My kids is currently isolated from the others (only child, currently at home) Patenting him will make all the kids belong to me... and I'm hungry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While one is always free to disagreee with Mr. Noonan's views, at least any such disagreement would be based upon a much more comprehensive understanding of what actually transpires when sequences are culled out from their naturally occuring environment.
Perhaps the most useful service rendered thus far by the CAFC is that through the diversity of the judges' opinions, keystone issues are coming into clearer focus devoid of sound-bite rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I believe he is insinuating that some or all posts here are from uninformed people and that if they wish to debate the issue then they should educate themselves.
Sounds like an Appeal to Authority fallacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know the law like the back of my hand, but I do not have any meaningful degree of familiarity with the technical field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are some things that folk understanding simply does not work for. This is not one of them.
Both my law lecturer and my biological anthropology lecturer whose own research was entirely in this field believed that patenting genetic material is outrageous for the same good sense reasons you see here on this page.
The big clue here is that there was one hegemonic view and that was that this kind of thing could not and should not be patented. All the movement in the other direction relies on trying to bamboozle people into thinking otherwise by telling them it's over their head but for people whose head is not over, it's really only people with something to gain who have broken away from the mainstream and good sense thinking.
This is the hallmark indicator that an issue is not above good sense and that people who are suggesting otherwise are simply employing sophistry and spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent on genes !!!! fuck off !!!
i want to start a new political party called THE COFFEE PARTY !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
does that mean I can patent wood?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One twin patented his genes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One twin patented his genes
Why is he against innovation?
He should be sued by the other twin whose innovative genius is proven by the very fact that he holds a patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, it is as usual misleading.
The court is exactly correct, think about all the other chemicals that naturally occur in the body, all the hormones, and compounds such as Serotonin, they are naturally occuring, but they have been isolated, identified and synthesised and the technology to isolate, identify and synthesise is what is patented.
Steel is natural as well, so is silicon, are you saying if you can isolate, refine and create from those raw and natural products that you cannot patent it ? because it is natural ???
Next time you type of your keyboard Mike, think about that plastic and what it is made of, its basically carbon !
So how can you patent plastic, or anything made of plastic, because it's made from a common element ? just arrainged in a specific or processes, isolated and INVENTED, and therefore patented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
Did you read the article? Because if you had, you would have discovered that it is in fact the end product (isolated DNA) that is being patented here, not the technology.
"Steel is natural as well"
In what sense? You can't mine it, you have to make it.
As you say, something has to be INVENTED. Not only did Myriad not figure out where in the overall DNA sequence it was, they also did not figure out how to isolate it. So what exactly did they INVENT?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
So by your own words, are you saying that they have patented Chemistry?
Or is it only okay to patent Chemistry when it involves processes that are too complex for the courts to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
Therefore, 'if anything' the computer is 'prior art' !!!..
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
Or when someone developed DDT, or a vaccine, or a chemical, or petrol, or cooking for that matter.
You do not patent 'solid state technology' nor do you patent "chemistry' or 'science' or electronics, you patent A METHOD of doing something.
When you patent a new type of air plane, you do not patent the raw material you use, metal and plastic or whatever.
You patent how you assembled those common components to create something new and innovative and able to be patented.
How simplistic are you people !!!!!
Do you honestly have trouble grasping that simple, fundamental concept ??? REALLY ????
It is very sad to see... I guess that is what you get from being re-programmed by masnick, and not having to ever think for yourself again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
Good thing no one patented it way back in the day, although some troll finally got around to patenting the process of toasting bread this century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
"Myriad did not invent a new method of nucleotide sequencing. Instead, it applied known sequencing techniques to identify the nucleotide order of the BRCA genes."
If you want to make an analogy, this is like patenting water because you were the first to determine that its chemical formula is H2O.
Or to use an astronomy analogy, instead of patenting a telescope, these guys are trying to patent Neptune.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patenting Neptune
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it is as usual misleading.
I think we can do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a sample of the judges DNA.
Determine genes in DNA sample.
Patten a goodly number of these genes.
File suit against the judge for using patented genes with out a license.
Eureka! Profit or overturnment of gene pattens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do not forget to sue by using a troll firm located in Marshall TX where the paten holder always wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge's DNA
The life of humans is filled with these unfathomable absurdities. Maybe we should let some other primate, or dolphins or whales, take a shot at running the world. (Full disclosure: I own the patent rights to certain dolphin genomes. So far I have not moved to assert my rights over their existence, but someday they will have no choice but to make me their king, or face bankruptcy. Their assets can be seized by the court. A major precedent was set in Ralphoo v Whale, 2007. If that deadbeat cetacean hadn't moved its funds into undersea havens, I would already be living on the proceeds.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gene "patenting"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Design Versus Instance
In fact, this is the complete opposite of design. It is purely about implementation of process. That is, the fact that something has been isolated is what has been patented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rush to Misjudgment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rush to Misjudgment
Yeah - that's right.
Nothing to see here - move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cutting it off for patent purposes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ludicrious (and not the rapper)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Separate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this ruling mean I can patent a steak ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
torturing
Does the invention "promote the Progress of Science" and is it "useful"? If so, stop torturing yourself and the rest of us and give us some peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: torturing
No.
Now please crawl back to your sites (no spamming this time?) and update them so that they don't look like they're from 1990.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue my Family!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing else left
Hey this is my DNA u cannot have it this is my property..lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]