3 ms·

Saying human created DNA sequences shouldn't be copyrighted is like saying novels shouldn't be copyrighted because they use the words. In the US at least, case

by searine 10y ago

Saying human created DNA sequences shouldn't be copyrighted is like saying novels shouldn't be copyrighted because they use the words. In the US at least, case law states that we can't patent natural genes, which is great. However, scientists are entitled to protections for their novel work. CRISPR is no different from any other biologic in terms of patents, and in the long run, 20 years of protection is a drop in the bucket. Hell, by the time they figure out this CRISPR fiasco, it'll be close to out of patent.

angersock 10y ago
A better analogy would be human-created software codes. And yeah, that's turned out really well for all of us, right?
- therealjumbo 10y ago
  Not to derail this conversation further but as far as software patents go I've been wondering for a while why somebody doesn't try this defense: In order to have a valid patent you need to share a sufficiently detailed design in the patent application. What constitutes a sufficiently detailed design? One that a current professional in the field could produce with no further input from the patent holder and secondly one that if given to two different implementers results in the practically the same widget. If either of these aren't true, the patent holder has essentially not held up the spirit of the law in so far as patents are meant to contribute back to the public. I'm on mobile now, so I'll stop there but I think you get the idea. For software the practical implication is that you need to submit your source code or pseudo code as part of a valid application,because much like a mechanical blueprint that is the design for software. Not: Input--->block diagram--->output. With that level of spec I could patent strong AI. I know some software patents are more sophisticated than that but I think most fail the test above. I honestly don't know if this has been tried before and shot down or what. Can anyone comment on that? Also as far as that goes, if the patent holder were to share their code in this fashion, and it passed all the other requirements then I wouldn't really have a problem with it.
  - therealjumbo 10y ago
    Replying to myself: I actually think most software patents would fail the first or second half of the above test. Never mind all of it. Edit:spelling
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
marxidad 10y ago
What if a retrovirus writes into my DNA someone's patented sequence—is that an infringement?
- Ygg2 10y ago
  Yes. Also if by chance you happen to have the code inside you.

by searine 10y ago

angersock 10y ago

A better analogy would be human-created software codes. And yeah, that's turned out really well for all of us, right?

therealjumbo 10y ago
Not to derail this conversation further but as far as software patents go I've been wondering for a while why somebody doesn't try this defense: In order to have a valid patent you need to share a sufficiently detailed design in the patent application. What constitutes a sufficiently detailed design? One that a current professional in the field could produce with no further input from the patent holder and secondly one that if given to two different implementers results in the practically the same widget. If either of these aren't true, the patent holder has essentially not held up the spirit of the law in so far as patents are meant to contribute back to the public. I'm on mobile now, so I'll stop there but I think you get the idea. For software the practical implication is that you need to submit your source code or pseudo code as part of a valid application,because much like a mechanical blueprint that is the design for software. Not: Input--->block diagram--->output. With that level of spec I could patent strong AI. I know some software patents are more sophisticated than that but I think most fail the test above. I honestly don't know if this has been tried before and shot down or what. Can anyone comment on that? Also as far as that goes, if the patent holder were to share their code in this fashion, and it passed all the other requirements then I wouldn't really have a problem with it.
- therealjumbo 10y ago
  Replying to myself: I actually think most software patents would fail the first or second half of the above test. Never mind all of it. Edit:spelling

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

marxidad 10y ago

What if a retrovirus writes into my DNA someone's patented sequence—is that an infringement?

Ygg2 10y ago
Yes. Also if by chance you happen to have the code inside you.