4 ms·
I can see that being patented, sold only to those that can pay, nearby farms that get pollinated with the gene being sued, the patenting company getting into fi
by readyplayernull 3y ago
I can see that being patented, sold only to those that can pay, nearby farms that get pollinated with the gene being sued, the patenting company getting into financial trouble, the gene being banned to protect interests in the name of nature. You know, the usual story:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...
- anticensor 3y agoIt would not pass the non-obviousness criteria. Both gene editing and the existence of pre-existing organelle are prior art, and combining those would be obvious to anyone in the field.
- rcxdude 3y agoYou might not get the patent on the whole concept, but you can probably get many different patents on the details needed to make it work.
- dmitrygr 3y agoyes...but one click purchasing got patented (by amazon), while purchasing existed and so did clicks...
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoCreating a food crop plant that contains these organelles will be an incredible challenge. They will need to solve dozens of difficult technical problems. It is obviously non-obvious.
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoI can see it dramatically reducing the need for fertilizer, making farming cheaper and less polluting. I hope the patenting company does protect its IP and makes a ton of money from the good it would do for the world.
- reaperman 2y agoI’d also be fine with taxpayers paying for it getting developed at a university and just being free to use after that.