> The problem here is that the patentability covers even extraction methods. You find a gene in a plant, you come up with a way to extract it and now you "own"

> The problem here is that the patentability covers even extraction methods. You find a gene in a plant, you come up with a way to extract it and now you "own" that gene. Even though you didn't discover it nor make it or anything. If the patents ONLY covered tailor made genetics I might find it a bit less onerous but the patentability is VERY broad. I was talking about the latter (owning a modified gene), but I completely agree that it is ridiculous to "own" a gene just because you were able to identify and extract it. I recall many years ago there was a row when a bunch of biotech firms were trying to patent the genome for Basmati rice and Turmeric. The Indian government was not happy because there were native plants and it would be ridiculous to pay licensing fees to some biotech firms in the US to grow plants that were native to the country.