4 ms·
See, this is not a field I'm really involved in, so I can't comment on the particulars. Case in point: what you describe is the isolation of a preexisting gene,
by astine 14y ago
See, this is not a field I'm really involved in, so I can't comment on the particulars. Case in point: what you describe is the isolation of a preexisting gene, rather than the creation of a new one, which is different from what I was thinking of.
But if the copyright is on the isolated gene, then I think the logic would follow that the copyright wouldn't apply to instances of the gene that haven't been isolated. Ie, plucking a leaf wouldn't allow you copyright leaves, but would allow you to copyright plucked leaves. (Which is stupid, but for different reasons.)
- doktrin 14y agoIf I understand correctly, it's a pre-existing gene that is modified by its removal / isolation. It appears to be an incredibly subtle change that in no way alters the fundamental characteristics of the gene itself. So yes, by extension they would hold no copyright over the genes in a given person's body, but it might extend to cover any tests or work that is done with those genes in the body - such as cancer screening tests.
- rayiner 14y agoWe're talking about patents not copyrights...