Supreme Court Decision
What did the Supreme Court decide? Here it is:
The Court ruled that naturally isolated DNA is not patentable, but that synthetic DNA (such as the cDNA for the BRCA1 and 2 genes) is patentable. The decision was unanimous. From the decision:
A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely becauseit has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.
…
cDNA is not a “product of nature,” so it is patent eligible under §101. cDNA does not present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments. Its creation results in an exons-only molecule, which is not naturally occurring. Its order of the exons may be dictated by nature, but the lab technician unquestionably creates something new when introns are removed from a DNA sequence to make cDNA.First, a brief lay of the legal landscape. Typically, an inventor cannot patent a “product of nature.” But ever since a 1911 appellate decision (.pdf), a natural product can be patented if it’s “isolated and purified” from its surrounding environment. Thus, the chemical compound adrenaline was itself patented because it was isolated and purified from adrenal glands. Shockingly, the Supreme Court has never directly reviewed this isolated and purified doctrine, even after 102 years.… Lower court opinions had made a significant case out of the fact that because the covalent bonds of isolated genomic DNA were cleaved from the surrounding chromosome, an isolated gene was, in fact, a new chemical entity.… five justices – and thus, a majority – believe that patents on isolated DNA are not eligible for patent protection. They don’t seem to buy the argument that simple covalent cleavage renders something a new chemical entity. The Court and lawyers deployed various analogies to make this point: gold from ore, a piece of wood from a tree, a liver from a patient, etc. [3]
Obviously, if you can not own a person legally in the year 2013 in the United States of America. You also can not own the full or partial blueprints (DNA sequences) to a person. If the Supreme Court ever rules that anyone can, I will patent the strong nuclear force which holds the nucleus of every atom together.
Each person owns his or her genes. Anyone who makes a copy or stores a record of my genetic sequence without my permission is in violation of my intellectual property rights and owes me a fine of $20 million.
That would be a view I would be able to enforce as the patent holder of the strong nuclear force.[4]
CITATIONS
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/04/13/myriad-genetics-ceo-owns-your-genes/
[2] http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/04/question-whether-we-can-patent-genes-heads-supreme-court/64213/
[3] https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2013/06/13/supreme-court-rules-on-myriads-gene-patenting-case/
[4] https://newsi8.com/xeno-patents-the-strong-nuclear-force-now-owns-universe/
2 comments
Reblogged this on One God News and commented:
BullShiz!
Having just copyrighted the philosophical argument that in the beginning there was a void and since an absolutely empty void cannot exist due to creating infinite potential energy and all possibility, I hereby declare ownership of all that exists and all that does not exist.
Unfortunately, since nothing is real, I can only ask that everyone believe that I own everything?