PDA

View Full Version : OT: The Stupidity of thinking one can patent genetics!


OffJumpsJack
04-29-2009, 10:46 AM
Genes are naturally occurring chemicals in nature. How can one say they own a specific combination of these chemicals?

Can one patent a short selection of bird-song?

Can one patent a commonly used word in a actively used language?

Can one patent a color and force all artist to pay them for any future use of that color?

A patent is for a process or mechanism not for a "product."


Genetic modification is a derivative work, They didn't create something new...

As the joke goes, God told the scientist who thought he could create life to "get his own dirt."

Has the patent office gone stupid or are they simply following the money trail? (look up oligopsony)

It is common knowledge that our genes are the blueprint of our bodies. If someone takes copies a "window" from the blueprints of one house and adds that "window" to the blueprints of another house, can they prevent anyone else from freely using the occurrence of a similar "window" in a similar location on any other blueprint for a house?

It is all just absurd! Any and all genetic patents should be declared null and void.

Oh! Hey! I am submitting a patent request on the use of the words "declared null and void" when immediately preceded by the word sequence of "genetic patents should be."

You see, I've identified the effect of these four word sequences and have combined them in a beneficial way. I should have my right to profit from this unique combination protected in some way.

Either life exist because of the designs of a creator or it is the result of a random occurrence.

If life is a random occurrence, then any gene sequence can be shown to have existed in the past.

MMario
04-29-2009, 11:04 AM
If you are talking about plant patents - they probably should have fallen under "copyright" rather then patents - but thankfully did not, as patents still have a rather limited lifespan and copyrights are being extended and extended and extended.

a plant patent is basically a (relatively) short term monopoly on reproduction; usually on varieties that MUST be vegetativly reproduced in order to come "true"

OffJumpsJack
04-29-2009, 12:09 PM
If you are talking about plant patents - they probably should have fallen under "copyright" rather then patents - but thankfully did not, as patents still have a rather limited lifespan and copyrights are being extended and extended and extended.

a plant patent is basically a (relatively) short term monopoly on reproduction; usually on varieties that MUST be vegetativly reproduced in order to come "true"

Ah but one could not copyright a plant because the modified genetics is such a small part of the overall gene code. It would be a derivative work with too little original contribution not to be an infringement.

Can one copyright a story that is in the public domain but which one has modified in an extremely small way?

My opinion is that plants should neither be patented nor copyrighted.

I could rant on about intellectual property rights too but to what use? :roll:

Perhaps if the government started placing taxes upon intellectual property then such claims of "ownership" of intellectual property might diminish. :roflhard:

Arielluria
04-29-2009, 12:40 PM
Either life exist because of the designs of a creator or it is the result of a random occurrence.

If life is a random occurrence, then any gene sequence can be shown to have existed in the past.Well said (all of it). It IS all about money and about human arrogance.

Like you I do believe in the Creator. You're free to think me foolish, but I think it's much more foolish to say first there was nothing, and then it exploded. :shock:

Mike
04-29-2009, 12:50 PM
I can understand limited patents on plant breeds.
When you spend a lot of time and money coming up with "Pink Lady" apple you need to get your money back out of it. Without a way to get the money back we would be without a lot of plants.

Patenting genetics is somewhat different.
And it's really how they protect the patents that are the issue. If your "Pink Lady" crosses with my "McIntosh" I did not infringe on your patent because my new "Pink McIntosh" shares some of the same genetics. I only infringe on your patent if I asexually reproduce your "Pink Lady" exactly.

Unless you protected your plant genetics by making it sterile you shouldn't have any protection.

Jan in CA
04-29-2009, 12:55 PM
This topic has the potential for disagreement. Please review this info from the forum guidelines before posting. Thank you!


The Off-Topic (OT) forum is meant for friendly and casual discussion on topics that are not directly knitting related. Posting topics that divide the membership, attack member's beliefs, or are bound to be controversial do not belong in the OT forum. Such posts will be locked and/or removed and the poster will be issued a warning.
In any forum community disagreements will arise. Please keep your disagreements respectful and courteous. Attacking another member's beliefs or putting down their beliefs will not be tolerated on KH.
If a discussion becomes heated, a likely consequence is that a mod will lock it. We don't lock topics often, but when we do, we expect the membership to respect our choice to close the topic for public discussion. Further, willful discussion of a locked topic in the public arena, is a serious offense.

Arielluria
04-29-2009, 01:11 PM
Thanks Jan, good reminder ;). Forgive me if I seemed rude in my reply. It was not intentional.