Genes Can Now Be Patented

Originally posted by NISMOALTI
reply to post by ProphecyPhD

 

if the us was to engineer a something like a super soldier, would you want another country to be able to copy it and user something like that aginst us.

I'm just as worried that the US will engineer something like a Super Soldier and use it against other countries for it's own gain, maybe against it's own people.

What if China/Russia/New Zealand developed a Super Soldier and used it against the US. Should the US be able to copy it and fight back?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

reply to post by NISMOALTI


if the gov't were to start creating super soldier through dna modifications, would the super soldiers become the property of the company that owned the dna???
this is why they used the words dna isolated from the body......
all of our dna is safe....as long as it stays in our body!!!
even if they've manipulated it....

at least for now........................

in the future we may have alot of people with altered dna that makes them perfect soldiers, perfect child caretakers, perfect whatever, and well, when that happens, the legal issue will be does the company that created these people, own them, use them as slaves, hire them out, profit by them.....
but we will all probably be long dead by then....

reply to post by dawnstar


that is exactly why i believe certain people let things like this happen, they believe they will be dead by then. I guess they don't believe in an afterlife

Originally posted by Manawydan
Interesting subject. On one side I am all for being able to patent a DNA sequence that I or my team came up with, is unique and above all does not (in the form patented) occur elsewhere in nature.

On the other side, I am strongly opposed to anyone being able to patent a sequence that they've found and is readily observable in nature be it potential cancer patients or elsewhere.

Likewise, any patented sequence would only pretend to the original "parent DNA". Any offspring due to cross-breeding in nature is no longer protected.

edit on 3-8-2011 by Manawydan because: Typos

1. The genes that are being "patented" are not readily observable. A great deal of time, money, and brainpower goes into discovering genes.

2. As others pointed out, the genes themselves are not being patented. You can go ahead and live your life and have tons of kids and not worry about being sued for patent infringement. What is being patented is the gene that has been isolated through a complex process.

To give a simple example from the case law, many years ago someone patented adrenaline extracted from animal tissues via a process. That person sued for patent infringement and the infringer tried to claim the person could not patent adrenaline because adrenaline occurs in nature. The court ruled that one indeed could not patent adrenaline, but the person was not patenting adrenaline. The person was patenting adrenaline that was extracted from animal tissues via a process. This patented adrenaline was different from the adrenaline that occurs in nature because it was in a concentrated form and could be exploited therapeutically and commercially.

www.pubpat.org...

reply to post by dawnstar


The US Patent office will not grant patents for genetically modified people on policy grounds. No need to worry about anybody patenting a race of super humans.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


So if i figure out a way to extract (and implant) blonde hair and blue eyes, even if you could figure out a way to extract (and implant) that same type of DNA.... the said DNA is "mine" via a patent

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by dawnstar

 

The US Patent office will not grant patents for genetically modified people on policy grounds. No need to worry about anybody patenting a race of super humans.

i am afraid you are wrong. anything besides natural reproduction will be affected by this. Example: Sperm Doners

reply to post by ProphecyPhD


1. In order to get a patent, your invention has to be novel and not obvious. If I was able to perform a similar process for implanting DNA, you probably could not patent your process because it would not be novel or not obvious.

2. Even if you could patent your "invention", you would not "own" the genes themselves. You would own the process that isolates and/or implants the genes and genes that have been isolated from that process. If I can figure out a different way to isolate and/or implant those genes, I would not be infringing your patent.

deleted

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by ProphecyPhD

 

1. In order to get a patent, your invention has to be novel and not obvious. If I was able to perform a similar process for implanting DNA, you probably could not patent your process because it would not be novel or not obvious.

2. Even if you could patent your "invention", you would not "own" the genes themselves. You would own the process that isolates and/or implants the genes and genes that have been isolated from that process. If I can figure out a different way to isolate and/or implant those genes, I would not be infringing your patent.

Ok. If i wanted to bake a cake and the only way to make a "perfect" cake would be at 350 degrees for 45 minutes.

I patent that recipie.

Now NO ONE can say bake for 45 minutes at 350 degrees (because i own that patent).

For lack of a better analogy, this is the same thing (no matter how you word it).

DNA is naturally in everyone and just because you figure out a way to manipulate it before i do does not make it exclusive to you (since it is naturally in me).

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint



at the present time.....

thus, they ain't gonna be any super humans created in labs, since well, you wouldn't want to create a race of super humans unless there were some laws in place that would enable you to control what these super humans could do.
but, some time in the future, there might be a need for these superhumans, I don't know, an alien attack, ecological disaster, whatever, and then I'd about be willing to bet that any morality issues would be laid aside....
and gov't and big business would "own" the super humans....
with some pretty tight controls on them...

reply to post by ProphecyPhD


This is how the drug manufacturers make money by selling a license to use genes, for treatments, and drugs, First they buy a license from a company thats holds the patent rights, from there they make brand name drugs, the license can be for ten to fifhtteen years, after that you can make and sell generics brands under your own license. There is a well known gene bank that has over 30 patents from 1992, they can even tell you what gene it was that kept the black plague from killing mankind

reply to post by GBBumblebee


Wake up the science is there to kill off any race you want, spanish, black, asian, white, and i read the white paper on this subject back in the 1990's, if you check the patent office you will have nitemares on which people in the US government, and private sector have there names on drug, and vaccines feel sick lately, N1H1 to name One. OH NO

reply to post by ProphecyPhD

So if i figure out a way to extract (and implant) blonde hair and blue eyes...

Blond hair and blue eyes are not genes. They are physical attributes derived from genes.

I suggest you investigate what a ‘gene’ really is. You may be surprised to learn the actual meaning.

Colloquial usage of the term gene (e.g. "good genes", "hair color gene") may actually refer to an allele: a gene is the basic instruction, a sequence of nucleic acids (DNA or, in the case of certain viruses RNA), while an allele is one variant of that gene. source

Of course you can patent a process, and if you do, you have a right to call the process yours. That does not mean you own the results of the process. Does the holder of the patent for patent leather own your shoes?

reply to post by dawnstar


good point i missed that in the read. it would be true that if its in you some one else should mot own it