5 ms·
If this occurred naturally, shouldn’t that automatically invalidate the patent?
by sebastien_b 5y ago
If this occurred naturally, shouldn’t that automatically invalidate the patent?
- agd 5y agoI think the point is that it might not have occurred naturally in this case.
- imglorp 5y agoCould part of it have existed naturally in the past, and the patent captured this part? Surely nobody is writing the entire organism from scratch; they're still making tweaks to natural sequences?
- rd_police 5y agoIsn't your statement dangerous?
- grosswait 5y agoYes. That’s why so few dare think it.
- jacquesm 5y agoNo, it's not that they don't dare to think it, it's that they realize it is stupid.
- graphpercolator 5y agoSo now we are back to the idea that this coming from a lab is dangerous idea that shouldn't be talked abbout? It was something to consider last summer but now it is a dangerous idea again. We have become such a total joke intellectually.
- dekhn 5y agoNo. We should consider all non-impossible hypotheses, weighted by their prior probabilities. What's dangerous is to proceed with sanctions against china without having an airtight case (with multiple cross-consistent supporting data inspecting by many parties). Nobody has made an airtight case that the virus was human-engineered (for whatever reason) or leaked (intentionally or accidentally). ANd it's most likely any evidence that did exist has been scrubbed. However, that's all speculation, not fact.
- dekhn 5y agoI asked this exact question 20 years ago when I learned artificial (IE, synthetic) sequences could be patented. Eventually somebody would patent something with "prior art" existing in nature.
- 8note 5y agoThe patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9587003B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9587003B2/en > 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the route of administration is intramuscular This does not match how sars-cov-2 is administered