4 ms·
That's one of the most sane conclusions to a patent case I've seen in a long while. It's always baffled me how you can patent naturally occurring DNA just becau
by lutorm 15y ago
That's one of the most sane conclusions to a patent case I've seen in a long while. It's always baffled me how you can patent naturally occurring DNA just because you figured out how to sequence it. By that standard, Galileo could have patented the craters on the Moon and the Galilean satellites. And whoever invented the microscope could have patented the cell. Columbus could have patented America.
A discovery is not an invention.
- drucken 15y agoI'm grateful for this case, if for no other reason, that wherever the US finally, eventually draws a line in ridiculousness with regards to "Intellectual Property", the rest of the world seems to have no choice but to adopt it as the least common denominator. This is particularly so for the UK and other Anglo countries. So, a good decision, indeed.
- thyrsus 15y agoMy understanding w.r.t. DNA is that naturally occurring DNA is full of "junk" sequences that do nothing relevant to the proteins of interest (whether they do anything else is an open question). The patented sequences omit the "junk" DNA. Whether these omissions of "junk" DNA raise the matter to the level patentable material is subject to differing opinion, but the courts have ruled.
- Daniel_Newby 15y agoThis is an insane decision. The drug in question is very niche, so performance data is scant. Deciding on a therapeutic window is a creative judgement call, not an observation of a fact of nature. Moreover the choice of number of molecules per red blood cell is unconventional and therefore also creative.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- andybak 15y agoDo either of those facts merit patentability? creative != novel and non-obvious. It's a much lower bar. And that is without considering the 'machine and transformation' side of things.