If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today) NewsFlash Human genes not susceptible to patent trolls   (usatoday.com) divider line 147
    More: NewsFlash, non-practicing entity, Myriad Genetics, biotechnology, geneticists  
•       •       •

4480 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Jun 2013 at 10:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-13 10:38:58 AM  
www.aceweekly.com

Deal with it
 
2013-06-13 10:40:26 AM  
Well there goes many Farkers' dreams of cloning Angelina's boobs.
 
2013-06-13 10:40:57 AM  
GOOD.
 
2013-06-13 10:42:51 AM  

Diogenes: Well there goes many Farkers' dreams of cloning Angelina's boobs.


No, you can still do that, but you have to make it freely available to everyone, I guess.
 
2013-06-13 10:43:07 AM  
Good, I think.
 
2013-06-13 10:43:19 AM  
I can't believe all 9 justices agreed!!!!
But, what does this mean, "The justices said it can patent a type of DNA that goes beyond extracting the genes from the body."
 
2013-06-13 10:45:21 AM  

raerae1980: I can't believe all 9 justices agreed!!!!
But, what does this mean, "The justices said it can patent a type of DNA that goes beyond extracting the genes from the body."


Good question.  My guess would be that they can patent artificial genes maybe, but not those that occur in nature?  Though even that is pretty vague.
 
2013-06-13 10:45:51 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Diogenes: Well there goes many Farkers' dreams of cloning Angelina's boobs.

No, you can still do that, but you have to make it freely available to everyone, I guess.


It's what our forefathers would have wanted. A duck and every pot and Angelina's boobs cupped in every hand
 
2013-06-13 10:49:54 AM  
Voted for this one. Way better than my headline.
 
2013-06-13 10:50:19 AM  

Blues_X: GOOD.

 
2013-06-13 10:52:14 AM  
And yes, SCOTUS said naturally occurring DNA is not patentable, but artificially created DNA can be patented.
 
2013-06-13 10:54:55 AM  
Yes! I like this ruling. Good.
 
2013-06-13 10:58:51 AM  
Good.
 
2013-06-13 10:59:03 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Diogenes: Well there goes many Farkers' dreams of cloning Angelina's boobs.

No, you can still do that, but you have to make it freely available to everyone, I guess.


Open source boobage?

/mamix?
 
2013-06-13 10:59:32 AM  
YAY.
 
2013-06-13 10:59:59 AM  
So my Kate Upton army project is a go?.
 
2013-06-13 11:02:08 AM  

dartben: And yes, SCOTUS said naturally occurring DNA is not patentable, but artificially created DNA can be patented.


That's weird. Computer code is covered by copyright, not patent. Artificial DNA seems like a pretty close analogue of code.

Maybe better that way, since patent only lasts about 20 years, and copyright goes for however long Disney says it does.
 
2013-06-13 11:02:30 AM  

raerae1980: But, what does this mean, "The justices said it can patent a type of DNA that goes beyond extracting the genes from the body."


You take multiple bits of naturally occurring DNA and recombine them into a new, non naturally occurring sequence.  This you can patent.
 
2013-06-13 11:03:00 AM  
I would like to think this was a no brainer, but with this court, let's just say that I am pleased.
 
2013-06-13 11:03:35 AM  
Well, there goes my plan for world domination by patenting common genes and demanding payment from all living humans for their use.
 
2013-06-13 11:03:53 AM  

HazMatt: That's weird. Computer code is covered by copyright, not patent. Artificial DNA seems like a pretty close analogue of code.


You can patent code.  People do all the time. Then people biatch about in on Fark.

Maybe better that way, since patent only lasts about 20 years, and copyright goes for however long Disney says it does.

Life of the Author +70 years was Europe's idea, not Disney's.
 
2013-06-13 11:04:13 AM  
Excellent. *increases the resolution of my 3D printer*
 
2013-06-13 11:04:57 AM  
notetofred.files.wordpress.com
I'd patent these human jeans!
 
2013-06-13 11:06:16 AM  

NYCNative: I would like to think this was a no brainer, but with this court, let's just say that I am pleased.


Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs pretty much clued anyone who watches in on the fact that the SCOTUS was probably going to hold this way.  Besides, the Supremes pick up Fed. Cir. cases once a session so they can beat on that court.  Its becoming tradition.
 
2013-06-13 11:07:40 AM  
Surprising decision after the Monsanto one.
 
2013-06-13 11:09:03 AM  

Rincewind53: Surprising decision after the Monsanto one.


how so?
 
2013-06-13 11:10:16 AM  

Teiritzamna: You can patent code. People do all the time. Then people biatch about in on Fark.


Actually, you can patent an idea or process that you intend to implement in code. The code itself is covered by copyright.
 
2013-06-13 11:10:32 AM  

Teiritzamna: HazMatt: That's weird. Computer code is covered by copyright, not patent. Artificial DNA seems like a pretty close analogue of code.

You can patent code.  People do all the time. Then people biatch about in on Fark.

Maybe better that way, since patent only lasts about 20 years, and copyright goes for however long Disney says it does.

Life of the Author +70 years was Europe's idea, not Disney's.


Regardless of what Europe was doing, Disney was one of the chief lobbyists pushing the last copyright extension act.  There is a reason it is known informally as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act."

The length of copyright terms these days is a farce, a complete distortion of the balance of interests (both authors and the public) the idea of copyright was originally intended to protect.
 
2013-06-13 11:12:18 AM  

HazMatt: Teiritzamna: You can patent code. People do all the time. Then people biatch about in on Fark.

Actually, you can patent an idea or process that you intend to implement in code. The code itself is covered by copyright.


Actually, the code itself can be covered by both copyright and patent, since you can write a claim that is entirely dependent on the actual language used.
 
2013-06-13 11:12:29 AM  
Did I somehow end up in a parallel universe?  The Supreme Court coming to a unanimous decision and actually making a good ruling?

/ Still pissed about the DNA collection ruling.
 
2013-06-13 11:13:09 AM  

raerae1980: I can't believe all 9 justices agreed!!!!
But, what does this mean, "The justices said it can patent a type of DNA that goes beyond extracting the genes from the body."


You can read the decision here. The relevant type of DNA that can be patented is complementary DNA, which is defined on page 3:

DNA's informational sequences and the processes that create mRNA, amino acids, and proteins occur naturally within cells. Scientists can, however, extract DNA from cells using well known laboratory methods. These methods allow scientists to isolate specific segments of DNA-for instance, a particular gene or part of a gene-which can then be further studied, manipulated, or used. It is also possible to create DNA synthetically through processes similarly well known in the field of genetics. One such method begins with an mRNA molecule and uses the natural bonding properties of nucleotides to create a new,synthetic DNA molecule. The result is the inverse of the mRNA's inverse image of the original DNA, with one important distinction: Because the natural creation ofmRNA involves splicing that removes introns, the synthetic DNA created from mRNA also contains only the exon sequences. This synthetic DNA created in the laboratory from mRNA is known as complementary DNA (cDNA).
 
2013-06-13 11:13:09 AM  
GOOD.  So goddamned many genetic patents are going to get challenged & knocked down, now.  Genetic screening is about to get a lot cheaper.
 
2013-06-13 11:15:53 AM  
Michael Crichton is pleased.
 
2013-06-13 11:16:08 AM  
The Madd Mann: Thank you.   Now I understand :D
 
2013-06-13 11:16:35 AM  

Doc Daneeka: Regardless of what Europe was doing, Disney was one of the chief lobbyists pushing the last copyright extension act. There is a reason it is known informally as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act."


The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was expressly written to bring us in line with Europe and other Berne Treaty signatories.  And yes, Disney and pretty much every other riughts holder was in favor of the adjustment - because they aren't stupid.  But note how that is far different from the statement I was addressing, which was "copyright goes for however long Disney says it does"
 
2013-06-13 11:20:59 AM  

Teiritzamna: HazMatt: Teiritzamna: You can patent code. People do all the time. Then people biatch about in on Fark.

Actually, you can patent an idea or process that you intend to implement in code. The code itself is covered by copyright.

Actually, the code itself can be covered by both copyright and patent, since you can write a claim that is entirely dependent on the actual language used.


Then I shall write a program that outputs 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101... to be executed on some minimal Turing machine, and then applies for patent for each sequence. Fines due to me for frivolous patent claims on already patented code shall be paid for with the astounding quantities of megabucks due to me for holding patents for all other possible code.

Wait a farking minute, I hereby patent the string of artificial DNA that is equivalent to Pi in Base 4, with 0 = Adenine, 1 = Cytozine, 2= Guanine, 3 = Thymine, out to say a quadrillion digits. If any of your artificial DNA shows up in there you owe me big.
 
2013-06-13 11:21:23 AM  
I like this ruling. Just finding a new gene doesn't make it patentable, you have to change it in some way. So while you can't patent a gene when you discover it, if you alter a gene to make a transgenic product (see Monsanto, other companies) that new gene is patentable. It makes sense to me.
 
2013-06-13 11:21:39 AM  

Rincewind53: Surprising decision after the Monsanto one.


The Monsanto decision wasn't really about genetics at all. The farmer was creating more of a product without paying royalties or fees. It just happens that as a living thing the product was self-reproducing. It would be the same as if you bought a toaster and then started selling copies of it without paying the original creator.

I don't really like Monsanto at all but I understand why the court ruled the way it did on that case.
 
2013-06-13 11:23:35 AM  
Mickey Mouse enters the public domain in 2019, I believe. Look for a new copyright extension law in 2018.
 
2013-06-13 11:23:40 AM  

oldfarthenry: [notetofred.files.wordpress.com image 397x216]
I'd patent these human jeans!


Peopleofwalmart.com already has that patent...and believe me, you don't want to infringe upon it!
 
2013-06-13 11:23:57 AM  

HazMatt: Teiritzamna: HazMatt: Teiritzamna: You can patent code. People do all the time. Then people biatch about in on Fark.

Actually, you can patent an idea or process that you intend to implement in code. The code itself is covered by copyright.

Actually, the code itself can be covered by both copyright and patent, since you can write a claim that is entirely dependent on the actual language used.

Then I shall write a program that outputs 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101... to be executed on some minimal Turing machine, and then applies for patent for each sequence. Fines due to me for frivolous patent claims on already patented code shall be paid for with the astounding quantities of megabucks due to me for holding patents for all other possible code.

Wait a farking minute, I hereby patent the string of artificial DNA that is equivalent to Pi in Base 4, with 0 = Adenine, 1 = Cytozine, 2= Guanine, 3 = Thymine, out to say a quadrillion digits. If any of your artificial DNA shows up in there you owe me big.


You'd have to show functionality and use otherwise ever peptide I've ever made in lab would be patentable.  However, they only end up patenting the ones they could conclusively show that they did something useful.
 
2013-06-13 11:24:40 AM  

HazMatt: Then I shall write a program that outputs 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101... to be executed on some minimal Turing machine, and then applies for patent for each sequence. Fines due to me for frivolous patent claims on already patented code shall be paid for with the astounding quantities of megabucks due to me for holding patents for all other possible code.

Wait a farking minute, I hereby patent the string of artificial DNA that is equivalent to Pi in Base 4, with 0 = Adenine, 1 = Cytozine, 2= Guanine, 3 = Thymine, out to say a quadrillion digits. If any of your artificial DNA shows up in there you owe me big.


You can certainly try.  Of course you will likely run into problems with 35 U.S.C.  § 101 Utility and Patentable Subject Matter and §
 
2013-06-13 11:24:55 AM  

dartben: And yes, SCOTUS said naturally occurring DNA is not patentable, but artificially created DNA can be patented.


That is good. Patent should go to the creator of said DNA.


/Now for someone to try and patent DNA on some deity's behalf
 
2013-06-13 11:25:46 AM  

Teiritzamna: Life of the Author +70 years was Europe's idea, not Disney's.


And we all know that we have to do anything Europe does, if it benefits a corporation somewhere.
 
2013-06-13 11:26:01 AM  

Teiritzamna: HazMatt: Then I shall write a program that outputs 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101... to be executed on some minimal Turing machine, and then applies for patent for each sequence. Fines due to me for frivolous patent claims on already patented code shall be paid for with the astounding quantities of megabucks due to me for holding patents for all other possible code.

Wait a farking minute, I hereby patent the string of artificial DNA that is equivalent to Pi in Base 4, with 0 = Adenine, 1 = Cytozine, 2= Guanine, 3 = Thymine, out to say a quadrillion digits. If any of your artificial DNA shows up in there you owe me big.

You can certainly try.  Of course you will likely run into problems with 35 U.S.C.  § 101 Utility and Patentable Subject Matter and §

112 Enablement.  Of course you can likely find some attorney to charge you the cash draft such dead on arrival claims . . .

Weird cut off there
 
2013-06-13 11:27:14 AM  

Teiritzamna: Doc Daneeka: Regardless of what Europe was doing, Disney was one of the chief lobbyists pushing the last copyright extension act. There is a reason it is known informally as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act."

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was expressly written to bring us in line with Europe and other Berne Treaty signatories.  And yes, Disney and pretty much every other riughts holder was in favor of the adjustment - because they aren't stupid.  But note how that is far different from the statement I was addressing, which was "copyright goes for however long Disney says it does"


I think the point is that the extension was driven by lobbyists for rights holders.  Disney is a big part of that push.  Hell, it even made national news for about 12 hours.
 
2013-06-13 11:28:43 AM  

dartben: Mickey Mouse enters the public domain in 2019, I believe. Look for a new copyright extension law in 2018.


humorously enough, they really don't need it:

the fact that a copyrightable character or design has fallen into the public domain should not preclude protection under the trademark laws so long as it is shown to have acquired independent trademark significance, identifying in some way the source or sponsorship of the goods.  Frederick Warne & Co. v. Book Sales, Inc.

trademark lasts forever and trust me that Disney has trademarked all the classic characters.
 
2013-06-13 11:31:22 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I think the point is that the extension was driven by lobbyists for rights holders. Disney is a big part of that push. Hell, it even made national news for about 12 hours.


This is true - but it also a lot of spin.  The SBCTEA was going to happen regardless, because it represented an imbalance in protections for copyrighted works in the two biggest markets for those works.  Of course actually knowing about international copyright law is tricky, and saying Disney is evil is easy.  Especially because they often, in fact, are.

As a pedant i just dislike the lack of nuance.
 
2013-06-13 11:32:46 AM  

Diogenes: Well there goes many Farkers' dreams of cloning Angelina's boobs.


Given the whole cancer thing and the surgery thing, she might advise against that.
 
2013-06-13 11:34:24 AM  
Teiritzamna:
HazMatt: Wait a farking minute, I hereby patent the string of artificial DNA that is equivalent to Pi in Base 4, with 0 = Adenine, 1 = Cytozine, 2= Guanine, 3 = Thymine, out to say a quadrillion digits. If any of your artificial DNA shows up in there you owe me big.

You can certainly try.  Of course you will likely run into problems with 35 U.S.C.  § 101 Utility and Patentable Subject Matter and §


It is a string of DNA to be used in a brute force exploration for novel proteins. Seems like that has as much utility as one-click shopping or shiny rectangle with round corners.
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report