Discussion on:

Human genes can be patented, federal court rules

So, the distinction is in vivo vs. in vitro? Really? One presumes that if one could successfully, independently regenerate human chromosomes in vitro, and mature a fetus outside the womb, the result would be a patent-able product. "The law is an ass." (Dickens)

The result of owned sequences is still a human-being with human rights, so it would create either a conflict in Law, or the result of the sequence is not owned by the sequence-patent owner, because it's now no longer a product, but a human-being.

uhm.... please, let me start and just say ..... WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???!!
although I don't know what that exactly will mean in terms of consequential manifestations.... hmm... I don't see how that's exactly is going to be used. Nothing against good bio-tec, it's just the Evil-forms that worry me. But one can't patent "illegal" patents, it's just the even though tec would be registered, it would also be probably publicly accessible via patent-search, and that would allow more wide-area of abuse? How is that different than any other tec? Nuclear-knowledge has been here for a long time, so anyone planning on a mass murder or extinction would have had to come out a while ago. Waiting for the right time? Using microbes? The patenting wasn't the problem, they already did create bio-weapons and already used for war, even some claim that HIV isn't a natural mutation, but the product of an ambitious mad American scientist (not people or government plat by definition) that just had to "go there"!!! -_- The patent would just actually put the blame & praise where it belongs. It's just an administrative issue, that should enforce justice. So I don't think that's the problem. I'm just wondering what is allowed to patented exactly? Meaning anyone that want to use the knowledge of the sequences that are discovered, now has to pay royalty for the patent holder, or what? It seems only to apply to unique synthetic DNA, if I'm not glancing over something. So no one would actually own our Gene sequences, but their invented, modified version? I'm too lazy to get into this part of this field at this point, just flowing to trigger someone that might be able to shine a better light with less efforts. Anyone?

This legal logic requires the narrowest set of blinders imaginable to even consider it to be legitimate, let alone conclude that this is patentable. Lets hope that the conservative free enterprise wing of the Supreme Court is still not strong enough to legitimize this kind of reasoning. It cannot stand if we want a semblance of a healthy planet.

The patent system is already broken beyond fixable, as is evidenced by the software debacle. Perhaps this will be the impetus to overthrow the entire concept and replace it with something that more closely addresses the complexities of modern technology in ways that honors the inventors without destroying our economic system.

The first I had heard of patenting biological material was about a man who had cancer, the cancer was removed and experimented on to create a treatment for that cancer. The argument was whether the researchers could patent the patient's cells and not include him in the royalties.

Imagine the crazy patent infringement cases and licensing scams if DNA bits can be patented like software. Entire families could be forced to pay a license fee because their offspring have characteristics that someone wrote as a possiblity and patented.

After that, why not patent water and air? The patent system needs to be overhauled to allow inventors to create new things without having to pay someone who postulated broadly ideas without actually creating anything.

What seems to be little understood is the underlying concept of patenting.
The patenting process requires that a device or process must be innovative and novel.
Or in other words there must not be any "Prior Art".
For that reason it should not be possible to obtain a patent on an existing item/process
which already occurs in nature or any other field.
However if a new process is developed to ascertain or arrive at a result then this process can and should be patentable even if the result may not be patentable.
The process of developing a new and innovative process or device can be very time consuming and very costly and a patent is intended to provide a limited time of monopoly like protection.
However, a patent is only as good as the money you have to pay for infringement litigation. It is a bit like justice; the more money you have the more justice you can afford.
Furthermore, a patent does not inhibit innovation. You are always free to improve on a patent using your innovative ingenuity and go and patent.

Except that for the past couple decades the patent office has issued patents for all sorts of things that were obvious any 'practitioner of the art'.

Lot's of the claims in the patents Apple is suing everyone in sight for violating (phone stuff) are things that were known and done years before Apple patented them in the early 90's.

Patent law needs to be drastically revised to catch up to reality. Software, wetware, genetics & such are all handled poorly by the system. Plant patent rules date back to before genetics!

There are far too many examples of large corporations driving people with legitimate patents into the ground because they have more money to work with....

The purpose of patents is to stimulate, not stagnate invention.

The current infatuation with 'innovation' is a step backwards, innovation has, as it's main plus': speed, marketing, cost.

But you will never get from a man walking to a bicycle through innovation.

But invention is expensive, time-consuming, difficult to bring to marked, fraught with failure...but it is the only route to truly new and practical devices and processes.

Anyone read Michael Chrichton's book "Next"?

...then the Law is an Ass.

A patent is a temporary monopoly awarded in exchange for publishing your invention.

It's main purpose is to promote creative problem solving.

But far too many applications are written to obfuscate the actual details.

To be awarded a patent, the application should be required to permit replication by any practioner of the art.

The correct quote is, "...then the law is a ass."

Does this mean that identical twins can sue each other for patent infringement?

there is a phrase that I have heard over and over again in life and it is this:
'there is nothing new in this world'
Nature or G*d or Earth has been here for over 4-5 billion years. WHY do we think we can think up anything new? Innovative? Novel? this is just a construct for someone to make money or in its simiplest form a living. The opportunity for abuse and greed is enormous. I hope and pray that clearer heads will prevail and make sure that the government does not get involved in human beings DNA.

It's like saying you can patent a wheel if you take it off the axle so it is no longer part of a complex assembly. It makes no sense.

I am a very long term HIV/AIDS survivor and I've done it without drugs. my wife has mentioned to me (or has asked the question) did these people have the right to patent my DNA. obviously the answer was yes all along.

I also cleared Hepatitis C as well as Limes Disease.

I imagine some white collar criminals are very rich right about now.

Fellow Traveller

In a few years nothing personal is yours anymore.

Your whole body is patented and owned by them

Your soul is sold to the devil.

They promised us Zion , they sold us to Cylon