My attempt: A “gene patent” isn’t about protecting a specific sequence of DNA, but about using that knowledge, and how the gene products act and interact, for a

My attempt: A “gene patent” isn’t about protecting a specific sequence of DNA, but about using that knowledge, and how the gene products act and interact, for a specific purpose. Example: the knowledge that certain genes are linked to cancer used to make a predictive test. The rest, then, is the standard argument for patents and copyright: it takes money and time to investigate this and create a product that is useful. That investment makes no sense if the product can easily be reverse engineered on day one. Even if you could protect the knowledge through some sort of obfuscation, the public is better served by granting you a patent, because the latter is time-limited and the forced publication of your knowledge helps to build on and critically assess the product you are selling. I generally don’t quite get the distinction b/w “invention” and “discovery”. I guess the idea is there is a limited amount of knowledge to “discover”, but inventions are theoretically unlimited? I’d love to hear from someone who is pro-patent for one category but not the other, preferably with real examples and not “what if you patent gravity?”