Judge rules that DNA can not be patented

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by RetiredGySgt, Mar 30, 2010.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,551
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,971
  2. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    I just copywrited mine.
     
  3. Dr Gregg
    Offline

    Dr Gregg BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,901
    Thanks Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +200
    I'm surprised it was allowed in the first place. Studying patent law it seems that a gene would not fall under non-patentable material, as its naturally occurring. Although if you can purify a component of a natural organism, you can patent that purified product. Although the article says the SC ruled that isn't the case anymore. Anyway, never understood the rational behind patenting genes.

    They can get patents for any drugs that may act on the protein, or kits to detect the presence of the gene in patients, they don't need the gene patented to make money
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2010

Share This Page