6 ms·

Does this mean that someone born with synthetic DNA is guilty of infringement if they have children? Do they need to buy a licence to keep living? Perhaps as a

Does this mean that someone born with synthetic DNA is guilty of infringement if they have children? Do they need to buy a licence to keep living? Perhaps as a compromise, the court can decide that they count as three fifths of a person.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
Once you are born with synthetic DNA, is it not "existing in nature?" An interesting point, but cloning is not very popular among bioethicists.
- anonymfus 13y ago
  Why cloning? In vitro fertilisation is common.
  - RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
    IVF doesn't actually change the genetic makeup of the sperm or egg in question. To do so would create a genetically altered human.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
rgbrenner 13y ago
The parents would have bought the license for their child when they agreed to have the DNA modified. By the time that child has children, the patent would have expired.
- andre 13y ago
  Unless they change that, and keep on extending it, as it has been done with copyrights.
  - rgbrenner 13y ago
    That's true... but I imagine if they extended it that far, reproduction rights of the child would be included in the license. Unlike corn, I can't imagine many parents would agree to sterilize their children just to include some synthetic DNA sequence. Even if the parents were very desperate (because of some genetic problem), they would still want their child to be able to reproduce.
    - moron4hire 13y ago
      assuming the parents understand the contract in which they are entering.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      They wouldn't need to sterilize the children, nor would the corporation be interested in that. Just think of the recurring revenue!
- wcfields 13y ago
  So... expect numerous patent lawsuits in Kentucky?
- jasonjei 13y ago
  Another possibility: the kid is a teen parent...
eldude 13y ago
A historical correction to the misplaced tone of your 3/5ths reference, the 3/5ths compromise was by the anti-slavery republican north to prevent the southern democratic slavers from dominating the House of Representatives and the electoral college.[1] [1] http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/07/18/were-our-founding-fathers-racist-the-slaves-are-35ths-of-a-person-debate/ http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/07/18/were-our-found...
- michael_miller 13y ago
  I know you meant well with your comment, but in general, it's best to avoid well-actually comments. This is one of Hacker School's core rules; they elaborate on why it's a good idea to avoid these types of comments at https://www.hackerschool.com/manual https://www.hackerschool.com/manual.
  - acjohnson55 13y ago
    Isn't this reply sort of a meta-well-actually comment in itself?
  - joshmlewis 13y ago
    What you linked to wasn't the HN 'manual'? In the actual guidelines found here: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html it doesn't say anything about well actually comments. It says be smart in your discussions and don't just get opinionated, it says to present facts and actually address the thing that you're arguing over. I believe having proper arguments and discussions is one of the core things HN is about. It lets people learn and see other points of view. If you don't like a comment just downvote it.
    - rickhanlonii 13y ago
      Furthermore, the character of 'well-actually' comments are that the orignal comment was close to, or intended to be close to, a certain fact, and the well-actualer is pedantically correcting the original without adding any substantial value to the conversation. This is not what happened here. rvkennedy did not make a statement of fact, he made an off-the-cuff remark. eldude challenged the substance and tone of that remark in order to prevent further misrepresentation of the point. He corrected and clarified the remark in a clear and substal way, thus falling well outside of the 'well-actually' category. Oh dear. I've spent way too much time reading SCOTUS rulings/blogs today.
craigyk 13y ago
I take this ruling as protection from infringement if a synthetic sequence happens to emerge naturally.
toufka 13y ago
In combination with the recent Monsanto case, it'd be consistent that the individual would owe licensing fees for each additional reproduction.
andrewfong 13y ago
That's an interesting scenario given the recent ruling in Bowman v. Monsanto. If planting the offspring of synthetic Monsanto seeds infringes Monsanto's patents, then by extension, conceiving the offspring of a person with synthetic DNA could infringe patents as well. In practice, this would be limited by the 14th Amendment. The prohibition against slavery trumps patent law, period. But I'm curious how far biotech companies would go before they got shut down. EDIT: As pointed out below, 13th not 14th. My bad. Although due process in 14th would probably kick in as well.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > In practice, this would be limited by the 14th Amendment. The prohibition against slavery trumps patent law, period. The prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude (except as punishment for a crime) is the 13th Amendment, not the 14th Amendment.
- Symmetry 13y ago
  It's possible that conceiving in those circumstances could be copyright infringement, but that's just a civil tort. So the parents might get sued for lots of money, but there wouldn't be any claims against the child. I don't see how slavery enters into it. I'd hope that a court would hold differently with human reproduction than Bowman v. Monsanto, but even if they don't it wouldn't be anything to do with the 13th Amendment.
Androsynth 13y ago
I always thought a good compromise would be that you can sell genetically modified seeds (or eggs or whatever) but you shouldnt be able to own anything that is produced by those seeds. ie children, saplings etc in other words, you own the process of genetically modifying an organism, not the genes. I dont know how realistic or unrealistic this is, since ianal. edit: someone else mentioned the monsanto ruling, which makes this idea sound unrealistic
akiselev 13y ago
IANAL (and for this hypothetical I don't think it matters) but with this SCOTUS ruling, you could argue that even though the original DNA strand was synthetic and patented, once it was injected into the embryo, nature takes over and copies and makes it its own. The very dynamic nature of mutations and sexual reproduction should (rationally) invalidate the "infringement" of reproduction. You could also argue that penalizing a child for what is unarguably random chance on the part of their parents is cruel and unusual, not to mention this would mean that the debt (licensing agreement) is essentially inherited by the child, which is illegal if not outright unconstitutional to my knowledge (i.e., unless the debt is under a joint card with the deceased, you cannot inherit their credit card debt, although the creditors get rights to part of the estate covering the debt). Edit: Apparently Myriad patented more than just strands for the BRCA genes, including some methods and tests, which is one of the reasons their case is important to SCOTUS. With our current patent system, I think you'd have to patent a lot more than just the gene to be able to sue people over having it, especially children of genetically engineered parents.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

RabbitAngstrom 13y ago

Once you are born with synthetic DNA, is it not "existing in nature?" An interesting point, but cloning is not very popular among bioethicists.

anonymfus 13y ago
Why cloning? In vitro fertilisation is common.
- RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
  IVF doesn't actually change the genetic makeup of the sperm or egg in question. To do so would create a genetically altered human.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

rgbrenner 13y ago

The parents would have bought the license for their child when they agreed to have the DNA modified. By the time that child has children, the patent would have expired.

andre 13y ago
Unless they change that, and keep on extending it, as it has been done with copyrights.
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  That's true... but I imagine if they extended it that far, reproduction rights of the child would be included in the license. Unlike corn, I can't imagine many parents would agree to sterilize their children just to include some synthetic DNA sequence. Even if the parents were very desperate (because of some genetic problem), they would still want their child to be able to reproduce.
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    assuming the parents understand the contract in which they are entering.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    They wouldn't need to sterilize the children, nor would the corporation be interested in that. Just think of the recurring revenue!
wcfields 13y ago
So... expect numerous patent lawsuits in Kentucky?
jasonjei 13y ago
Another possibility: the kid is a teen parent...

eldude 13y ago

A historical correction to the misplaced tone of your 3/5ths reference, the 3/5ths compromise was by the anti-slavery republican north to prevent the southern democratic slavers from dominating the House of Representatives and the electoral college.[1] [1] http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/07/18/were-our-founding-fathers-racist-the-slaves-are-35ths-of-a-person-debate/ http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/07/18/were-our-found...

michael_miller 13y ago
I know you meant well with your comment, but in general, it's best to avoid well-actually comments. This is one of Hacker School's core rules; they elaborate on why it's a good idea to avoid these types of comments at https://www.hackerschool.com/manual https://www.hackerschool.com/manual.
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  Isn't this reply sort of a meta-well-actually comment in itself?
- joshmlewis 13y ago
  What you linked to wasn't the HN 'manual'? In the actual guidelines found here: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html it doesn't say anything about well actually comments. It says be smart in your discussions and don't just get opinionated, it says to present facts and actually address the thing that you're arguing over. I believe having proper arguments and discussions is one of the core things HN is about. It lets people learn and see other points of view. If you don't like a comment just downvote it.
  - rickhanlonii 13y ago
    Furthermore, the character of 'well-actually' comments are that the orignal comment was close to, or intended to be close to, a certain fact, and the well-actualer is pedantically correcting the original without adding any substantial value to the conversation. This is not what happened here. rvkennedy did not make a statement of fact, he made an off-the-cuff remark. eldude challenged the substance and tone of that remark in order to prevent further misrepresentation of the point. He corrected and clarified the remark in a clear and substal way, thus falling well outside of the 'well-actually' category. Oh dear. I've spent way too much time reading SCOTUS rulings/blogs today.

craigyk 13y ago

I take this ruling as protection from infringement if a synthetic sequence happens to emerge naturally.

toufka 13y ago

In combination with the recent Monsanto case, it'd be consistent that the individual would owe licensing fees for each additional reproduction.

andrewfong 13y ago

That's an interesting scenario given the recent ruling in Bowman v. Monsanto. If planting the offspring of synthetic Monsanto seeds infringes Monsanto's patents, then by extension, conceiving the offspring of a person with synthetic DNA could infringe patents as well. In practice, this would be limited by the 14th Amendment. The prohibition against slavery trumps patent law, period. But I'm curious how far biotech companies would go before they got shut down. EDIT: As pointed out below, 13th not 14th. My bad. Although due process in 14th would probably kick in as well.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> In practice, this would be limited by the 14th Amendment. The prohibition against slavery trumps patent law, period. The prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude (except as punishment for a crime) is the 13th Amendment, not the 14th Amendment.
Symmetry 13y ago
It's possible that conceiving in those circumstances could be copyright infringement, but that's just a civil tort. So the parents might get sued for lots of money, but there wouldn't be any claims against the child. I don't see how slavery enters into it. I'd hope that a court would hold differently with human reproduction than Bowman v. Monsanto, but even if they don't it wouldn't be anything to do with the 13th Amendment.

Androsynth 13y ago

I always thought a good compromise would be that you can sell genetically modified seeds (or eggs or whatever) but you shouldnt be able to own anything that is produced by those seeds. ie children, saplings etc in other words, you own the process of genetically modifying an organism, not the genes. I dont know how realistic or unrealistic this is, since ianal. edit: someone else mentioned the monsanto ruling, which makes this idea sound unrealistic

akiselev 13y ago

IANAL (and for this hypothetical I don't think it matters) but with this SCOTUS ruling, you could argue that even though the original DNA strand was synthetic and patented, once it was injected into the embryo, nature takes over and copies and makes it its own. The very dynamic nature of mutations and sexual reproduction should (rationally) invalidate the "infringement" of reproduction. You could also argue that penalizing a child for what is unarguably random chance on the part of their parents is cruel and unusual, not to mention this would mean that the debt (licensing agreement) is essentially inherited by the child, which is illegal if not outright unconstitutional to my knowledge (i.e., unless the debt is under a joint card with the deceased, you cannot inherit their credit card debt, although the creditors get rights to part of the estate covering the debt). Edit: Apparently Myriad patented more than just strands for the BRCA genes, including some methods and tests, which is one of the reasons their case is important to SCOTUS. With our current patent system, I think you'd have to patent a lot more than just the gene to be able to sue people over having it, especially children of genetically engineered parents.