Slashdot Mirror
Music From DNA Patented
stm2 writes "Two lawyers have patented generating music from a DNA sequence. According to the patent, it covers 'music generated by decoding and transcribing genetic information within a DNA sequence into a music signal having melody and harmony.' A comment to the blog post mentions DNA-derived music being performed at a conference in 1995."
Why? I just want to know what possible profit/benefit you could find from making music from DNA.
So I suppose as long as it's heavy metal it should be safe from litigation ;)
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
This is the kind of invention that would be worth protecting if it protected only the specific device the inventors produced to do it.
But as it happens, the patent as granted would protect them from competing with me, and anyone else whose DNA codes their bodies functionality to play a musical instrument with melody and harmony.
It's a joke, it ruins "science and the useful arts" in the name of "promoting" it, and it ruins the actual narrower right of authors/inventors to be protected for a reasonably limited time from competition stealing their investment just in time to compete with them.
But no one is talking about replacing it with something Constitutional. That would be a great invention, based on the original prior art, that should be as widely copied as possible.
--
make install -not war
And what happens when the music generated from my OWN DNA is a #1 hit?
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
I cannot find a source, but I too can attest to this being done many years ago. My 9th grade Biology teacher played it for us in fact. And now Im 21.
Prepare to meet prior art you two.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Didn't Clifford Pickover's Mazes for the Mind (1994) book have a chapter on this?
(on vacation and don't have my copy handy to check...)
-Chris
Look, I know it's standard groupthink around here to hate patents and anything patent related, but we don't need blatently false stories to rile everyone up.
The patent is not for "music obtained from DNA" it's for a METHOD to obtain music from DNA. The idea is actually pretty damn unique if you ask me. This is not a frivolous patent.
God damn Slashdot seems to get more and more inaccurate every year.
Im pretty sure my DNA sounds like "Oops I did it again"
So much for finding a nice girl & making beautiful music together.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
This will complement nicely those audiophiles who emit DNA every time they listen to their $30,000 hi-fi systems.
That's all you're doing here transcoding one kind of information to another.
What's the point in encouraging people to invent shit if they get to lock it up for several lifetimes? What you'll get from this is one really bad DNA->music encoder, and every bit of competition locked out of the race for decades.
If the patent system were a car it'd be a rusted out common piece of shit from the 70s that isn't even worth salvaging as scrap metal.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
SCREW YOU ALL I'M GOING TO PATENT THE SEQUENCE FOR BLOW-FLYS!! You will see when my bow-fly music is found to be truely harmonic, well above the humans sequence moronic melodies
Was it the movie Mission to Mars that featured something like a DNA sequence transmitted through music? If so, would that count as some sort of prior art?
...you know the intellectual world is going down the tubes.
I guess that along with "Happy Birthday to you...", this DNA decoded musical masterpiece won't be played at TGI Fridays either. And it's a good thing too. I can't imagine the amount of revenue, the rightful owners of these two pieces, would lose if either of these two songs entered the public domain. WHEW...It's a good thing we have such wonderful copyright laws protecting the owners of these two fine pieces of ...ARE THEY EVEN REAL FRICKEN SONGS?
There's plenty of prior art on this. Mapping some sequence (DNA, fractals, etc.) has been around for a long time. Heck, wind chimes map wind gusts onto a pentatonic scale.
If someone patents a methodology that prevents me from creating real music, then I'll start to care.
i graduated with a bachelors in molecular biology & biochemistry in 1981. i had already read papers by that time which described audio/musical transcriptions of DNA, RNA and protein sequences specifically designed to take advantage of the greater perceptual bandwidth of the auditory system vs. the visual system.
the one thing that might be novel here (i don't have time to read a patent abstract at present) is if they have found some way to generate musically meaningful compositions that go beyond a simple (chemical unit) => (musical note) mapping. that could enhance the ability of the auditory system to recognize patterns in sequences, and might be worthy of a patent.
See, every time we see a stupid new patent, I have to think of one stupider and yet somehow pertinent. So here's my patent idea:
Wind Chimes!!
See, they are similar because it's about making "music" from the things we find in nature.
I can with absolute clarity remember seeing albums/tapes of "DNA music" being sold in the gift shops of various museums -- notably the Boston Museum of Science -- in the mid/late 1990s. I remember because I saw it there one day when they were playing it, but didn't buy it, and then I was never able to find it again (I had really wanted to get it as a gift for a biologist friend).
But even beyond that, just typing "DNA music" into Google turns up lots of results, some of which have a lot of history behind them.
The people at AlgoArt (not sure if they're the people behind the patent or not) have been making (transcribing?) music from DNA sequences since 1992. They have three CDs available. I rather suspect that it might have been one of these that I heard in Boston those years ago.
And this summary page contains a reference to a paper published in 1984 which contained specific references to the idea of making music from DNA sequences. ("Hayashi and Munakata , using a system that assigned pitches to the four DNA bases according to their thermal stability within the interval of a fifth, found that converting the DNA sequences to music helped to expose the meaning of specific sequences and made remembering and recognizing specific DNA patterns easier.")
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
What a crock. I did this using CSound in 1997 after listening to The Shamen's 1995 album Axis Mutatis, which has a track that does the same thing called "S2 Translation". Do they even Google for prior art? These patent inspectors are truly no Einsteins.
Here's a link with a description of the method used to make "S2 Translation":
http://www.nemeton.com/axis-mutatis/s2.html
I patent sexual intercourse. Now everybody wanting to do it pays me or goes to jail!!! Send $159.99 to get your sex permit or live in celibacy!
A good century ago or so, at the dawn of radioastronomy, there was a whole big point of "celestial music". People thought that the radio signals emitted by stars have a certain harmony, and when used right, can produce "heavenly" melody.
Needless to say that didn't go very far.
Same story here. Just because you find something which, when transformed, can generate certain audio patterns, doesn't mean it will be any good as *music*. In fact, looking for some "objective", "universal" melody source is pretty much dumb as music preference varies greatly even within our own species (*waits for rock vs rap flaming to start*), and many other species have different combinations of sound they perceive as music (and which we perceive only as noise).
Music is *produced* with a specific purpose in mind, and the production rules vary depending on that purpose. You won't find it bestowed upon you, whether from the stars or magically encoded in some DNA sequence.
"Method for remembering a musical sequence through notation involving a series of lines and spaces."
I remember that the novel "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" featured a spreadsheet that turned financial numbers into music, and that later in the book the plot turned on discovering that DNA and other natural phenomena translated into the music of Bach. That's how I remember it, anyway.
So, do novels count as prior art?
-Gareth
What a pair of retards. This is definitely one of those bullshit patents... my school has been doing (and giving courses in) DNA music for years now. No, I don't think the people at my school invented it, but this has been going on for a while. They're lawyers, too... that just pisses me off.
See Music and Fractal Landscapes (pdf).
It describes generating music from every aspect of nature.
Cow Cube
Now that DNA and music have intersected,
we're really in trouble.
DNA = Douglas Noel Adams...
Douglas Adams was very interested in the combination of music and math, and biology. I think I even remember reading (probably in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency) about music made from DNA (similar to the idea of making music from corporate profit reports). Then again, I could be pulling that out of MYASS...
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
Everybody assumes they own their own DNA. But if you're talking about DNA as a creative work, and in the context of patent/copyright issues, aren't your parents the ones who should rightfully own that DNA sequence. After all, they invented it (and thus, you).
Oh, and if it helps, DNA are the initials of Douglas Noel Adams. So that book is an instruction from DNA on how to create music from nature.
Cow Cube
The track 'S2 Translation' on the Shamen album Axis Mutatis was *exactly* this, being music generated from the DNA sequence of the S2 protein. Very odd track, strangely hypnotic and ethereal but a little annoying after a while. Pretty visible prior art if you ask me (though IANAL). More about the track here. Not surprisingly, the S2 protein is the receptor for serotonin...
Nick Donaldson mailto:psyclops@psyclops.com Bit Wrangler Extraordinaire! http://www.psyclops.com/
People have been generating music from streams of data for a LONG time. Mozart's musical dice game comes to mind, as well as Charles Dodge's Earth's Magnetic Field, from back in 1970, which generated some very pleasant music from K index data. And what about Xenakis's work?
So if I produce something off key, I'm safe?
What?
You can patent the process to convert the DNA to music but not the DNA itself as music. You might have some rights to music made from your own unique DNA but patenting the concept is rediculous. I doubt anything of value would be made from DNA but it's the principal. Part of the point is are they sequencing the DNA themselves or using sequencing done by the Human Genome project? If so what rights do they have to the Genome Project sequencing information? It's meant for medical use not to be exploited for some BS patent for generating music.
This only covers music with melody and harmony. That means we can still change DNA into rap, punk, and metal.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
...that they cornered the market on transcribing DNA sequences into music notation in general, or by their parameters? If they are talking in general, they have no leg to stand on- there's too much prior art, fictional and practical. If they have a specific algorithm that makes a particular 'sound', it's still pretty craptacular.
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/dnaid.htm
Table-ized A.I.
No it is not worth protecting this kind of patent, under any circumstances, because it corrupts the entire basis on which patents are granted.
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to a patentee for a fixed period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention.
And the reason why the state affords a patentee such a protected period is so that the public disclosure does not place the patentee at a disadvantage while bringing the invention to market, versus others who have obtained the details without effort through the disclosure.
There has been no actual invention here whatsoever, there are no innovative details to offer the public, and only one single unremarkable choice was made. The alleged "invention" consists merely of taking one class of datum (a gene sequence) and using it as input to a process, a generative music generator. Neither one nor the other is new, and this kind of juxtaposition is arbitrary and does not result from insight nor from effort. And as many others have pointed out, it's not even a novel choice, but has been done countless times before.
Also, the lawyers aren't actually producing anything so there is nothing to protect, and release of the details provides the public with absolutely nothing of benefit in exchange. What we have here are the usual worthless sons of bitches thinking they can carve out a piece of the public ideas space and claim that they own it --- totally at odds with the very concept of patents.
So no, it's not worth protecting, regardless of any other point. It's simply contemptible, corrupting of the patent system (as if it could get any worse), and totally ill-founded.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
But... they're still waiting to see if their Music from Meatloaf patent gets approved. But such is the life of the great innovators.
They may have a patent to convert DNA into music, but if they try to do it to MY DNA, they'll be suffering from a copyright lawsuit!
While lawyers may have applied for the patent, some PhD in biology wrote the damn thing. My head nearly exploded from trying to read it.
And when I searched for the term "music", nowhere in the patent did the term "music" pop up.
Either someone screwed up the article or they linked to the wrong patent. Dang, I read the article AND tried to read the patent. A first!
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Hmm...Aren't we humans technically devices for decoding DNA into music? I mean, our DNA defines who we are (along with supposedly environmental factors, but most of that is either just pure chance, or caused by other blobs defined by DNA/environmental factors), so technically, any musician who will produce, or is producing music that they describe is violating the patent, and anyone who has produced music has prior art. US Patent Office FTW!
Here's a link to the actual patent of interest.
People have been performing music from DNA for YEARS, how the hell can a couple of dudes patent what's already entered the public domain?
e =1329&context=bejeap). 2007 - 20 years = 1987. So unless these guys were able to pull out some crazy extentions there is no way they thought of this first.
Douglas Hofstadter noted the idea in 1980 and Hayashi and Munakata made the first music from DNA in 1984! In exactly the same way as these lawyers propose to do so no less. Not to mention the numerous artists who have also created genetic music since then (http://whozoo.org/mac/Music/Sources.htm). Patents in the US are granted for 20 years from the date of filing (and this is recent, it used to be 17; http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl
I think the intended patent is 7247782, "Genetic music".
The link in the story takes me to patent 7250557, which appears to be unrelated ("Plastidic phosphoglucomutase genes").
I've patented the creation of music by interpreting electrical signals sent to an amplification device from a guitar.
Seriously, what the hell is this crap? Making music that is somehow based off of DNA. "The song you created starts with a "D", and DNA starts with the same letter, therefore you are guilty of copyright infringement". Or, "This techno beat seems to follow a pattern and DNA has a pattern, therefore we're going to sue you".
There's 2 things you can throw into a proposed law/patent application to make it work. One is words related to terrorists "preventing TERROR/AL QUIEDA!/BOMB/FREEDOM/etc", the second is science words which people don't understand.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
I spent an hour attempting to read that and I still dont have the faintest idea about what it means really but IANA biologist.
It certainly didnt sound like a frivolous patent to me. But, im also very lost when it comes to how it relates to music. it seemed more like they were into cloning than anything else or storing dna in some fashing. It would have been nice if someone with a clue had said "oh, this section here, this means encoding music from a dna stream" or something even vaguely represented something that was like english (or even american english considering i can almost read that).
Is the wrong patent linked or have patents become such that they use terminology that doesnt make sence to a single human being in the known universe? i mean for the love of god, "music" doesn't even appear once in the patent and nor does "harmony", "song" or any other terminology that seems to even relate to music except "encoding".
Speaking as a layman - oh well i cant turn my dna into music (apparently). But I probably couldn't in first place anyway and nor would I want to for that matter. I'd love to be angry at the patent and shake my first at it, but its so hard when it is just incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo and even sounds like theres been alot of work put into it. I'm certainly not going to take someone word for it that its a bad patent.
But then again, thats what lawyers do, i remember a lawyer turning a sentence i wrote about how i wanted the software i'd written for a company into 50 pages of rubbish i couldnt understand anymore.
The link in both the /. article and in the original Genome Technology article leads you to a patent that has absolutely nothing to do with music. It is a gene patent, awarded to DuPont 6 years ago, namely US patent # 7,250,557 and is about generating GM plants with modulated sugar/starch content. Half of the actual patent is a long sequence description. However, the word 'music' does not occur anywhere in it.
Admittedly, it's not fabulous, but I have made music with DNA sources for a while. The example below uses an incomplete strand of smilodon DNA from La Brea for the torn arpeggio throughout the song. Another one uses a strand of 5-HT serotonin
c e
/organism="Smilodon fatalis" /organelle="mitochondrion" /mol_type="genomic DNA" /db_xref="taxon:13266" /gene="12S rRNA" /gene="12S rRNA" /note="12S" //
http://www.last.fm/music/Lucite.org/_/Chocolatefa
Translating standard DNA descriptions to MIDI is not difficult, and not a new idea. There used to be some old Apple and DOS programs for doing it as well. If I continue to to make such music, is there any way I could conceivable get in trouble?
*****
LOCUS S46659 132 bp DNA linear MAM 08-MAY-1993
DEFINITION 12S rRNA [Smilodon fatalis=saber-toothed cats, Mitochondrial, 132
nt].
ACCESSION S46659
VERSION S46659.1 GI:257782
KEYWORDS .
SOURCE mitochondrion Smilodon fatalis (saber-toothed cat)
ORGANISM Smilodon fatalis
Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Euteleostomi;
Mammalia; Eutheria; Carnivora; Fissipedia; Felidae; Smilodon.
REFERENCE 1 (bases 1 to 132)
AUTHORS Janczewski,D.N., Yuhki,N., Gilbert,D.A., Jefferson,G.T. and
O'Brien,S.J.
TITLE Molecular phylogenetic inference from saber-toothed cat fossils of
Rancho La Brea
JOURNAL Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89 (20), 9769-9773 (1992)
MEDLINE 93028544
PUBMED 1409696
REMARK GenBank staff at the National Library of Medicine created this
entry [NCBI gibbsq 115817] from the original journal article.
This sequence comes from Fig. 1.
FEATURES Location/Qualifiers
source 1..132
gene 1..132
rRNA 1..132
BASE COUNT 32 a 22 c 33 g 45 t
ORIGIN
1 tttatcgatt atagaacagg ctcctctaga gggatgtaaa gcaccgccaa gtcctttgag
61 ttttaagctg ttgctagtag ttctctggcg gatagttttg tttagggtaa ctatctaagt
121 ttagggctaa gc
Is there a word for slashdotters getting faked out?
The cited patent is titled "Plastidic phosphoglucomutase genes".
The word "music" does not appear in any of the patent text.
As is typical of Knee Jerk Slashdotters, nobody reads past the first paragraph.
In about 1995, The Shamen released the track S2 Translation which was generated by decoding the DNA sequence of the S2 protein. http://www.nemeton.com/axis-mutatis/s2.html
)9TSS
I thought that patents were supposed to advance the useful arts, but on the other hand, I really don't care that someone is using DNA to make music. I mean, I wasn't really planning on doing something crazy like that, anyhow, so the patent won't exactly hurt anything.
Moreover, I'd be willing to bet that, among the average population of people who hear of a newly patented idea and think, "Why I thought of that YEARS ago," a larger percentage of them are probably among
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
First of all, don't *you* have copyright of your own DNA?
.. somehow, the notion of lawyers digging up long-dead people doesn't seem all that strange to me.
Also, I think music from it could/should be considered a derivative work.
So to make any music from DNA legally, that someone would either have to obtain (buy/lease) the copyright from someone else, or use their own DNA.
Considering that copyright extends for 70 years beyond the 'author's death, maybe these lawyers will try to dig up people who have been dead for 70 years
Privacy begins with
And Lawyers wonder why they are held in such low esteem Here Siggy siggy siggy...Here Siggy siggy siggy
1) DNA isn't even fairly random.
2) Patenting a method of converting DNA into music does not mean they have patented 'every note combination possible', just this one method of turning one type of data input into music. People who make music the normal way will still be able to and won't have to pay royalties.
Other than that, your post was 100% correct, in the sense that I assume your username is right.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Big companies want patents to scare smaller companies. They don't care if the patents are valid, because it is too expensive to go before a court. Some lawyers in the U.S. charge $600 per hour. The U.S. government is being sold to anyone who has money.
People in other countries know the U.S. government is corrupt, but Americans either don't know or don't really care.
See this billboard in New Zealand advertising pizza: Hell. Too good for some evil bastards.
And the "digital photo of you to music" and the "turtle growth rings to music", and "hair on the barber shop floor to music" and "snail trails on the sidewalk to music" and "sand wavelets on the beach to music" and "fingerprints on a monitor to music" and any other "to music" algorithm I can think of that is perfectly obvious to the skilled or unskilled practitioner. Should I add the words "calculated and converted by a computational device connected to a method of input" to make it sound brainier?
These snarky comments posted to Slashdot also made from DNA.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I think I recall a Philip K Dick short story involving someone thrying to preserve music over very long time spans by encoding it in DNA inserted into the genomes of various species. The idea was that it would be a great distributed, fault tolerant, etc etc medium - within the living body of every rabbit (say - I cannot recall the animal). I really don't understand how the idea as stated here can be patentable - there seems like many many cases of prior art.
People were generating music from biological sequences on Macs in the mid-80's and on DOS PCs before that.
A society where people with DNA which generates "bad" music are killed or disadvantaged will tend over time to evolve individuals whose DNA produces "better" music (kind of gives a new twist to the "Let's make music together" line).
These lawyers are members of a strange cult which wants to break off of human society and start to implement these ideas, the patent is just so that there will be prior art on the books in case someone else tries to patent it to stop them.
Or perhaps they've discovered that human society is just an alien-run genetic algorithm to produce the next alien musical masterpiece, these lawyers are freedom fighters who have discovered the plot, and before they can apply for the galactic patent, which is our only chance to stop this madness, they have to show that our own patent system doesn't object to it. (Damn, should have tried to sell that idea to Piers Anthony before posting...)
Wow, all this imagination, and even before my first cup of coffee!
The patent involves "Genetic music generated by decoding and transcribing genetic information within a DNA sequence into a music signal having melody and harmony,", so presumably a 'musical signal' without melody and harmony is exempt. Now where's the patent office again?
Might not be mine legally.
sometimes, nothing.
I propose to start suing all retroviruses under the DMCA since they hijack our DNA in their reproductive cycle, circumventing our copy protection scheme in the process. No matter what damages are awarded, this will put an end to the spread of HIV/AIDS, for the viruses will quickly (as in: immediately) run out of finances to support the ensuing legal battles. their only options being to either face jail time or simply go extinct.
The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
~sigh~
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
Patent music made by coutning how many petals are left on a flower after removing one, chanting for each in turn "she loves me not, she loves me".
The first attempt at this was done by a classically trained opera signer turned radio astronomer. She was on Letterman many years ago.
Since the DNA sequences are owned by the people, via the government, they cannot patent or copyright the sequence. They can, however, copyright the collected works based on any sort of production method they wish. But patent it? Not bloddy likely, given prior art that does the same regardless of the source of the numbers.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
And published in Nature! Hayashi, K. and Munakata, N., Basically Musical, Nature 310:12, pp. 96 (1984).
Speaking of prior art, wasn't this already done in some movie? It's one of those ones in the late 90's early 00's where they have a mission that lands on mars in order to rescue the first mission that was stranded there. Well they find one guy still alive and he's working on some output from a face that's a geological feature. It turns out it's a DNA sequence that's coded into sound and so they make a code into sound of human DNA and it opens up a cave and one guy flies to the martians. I'm telling you it happened.
I'm saying this is an obvious invention. These idiots must have watched that bad movie as well.
Ask and ye shall receive: DNA Music Paper from 1995. Note, I didn't read the patent, but DNA music has definitely been done before.
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
So if I took a DNA sequence, converted the letters to notes and started playing on my old high school saxophone, I'd be infringing on a patent?
What kind of morons do we have working at the PTO nowadays? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard of in a long time. Maybe I should go through with filing my patent about making a squeaking noise by blowing air through my two thumbs with a blade of grass in between them. Unbelievable.
And they said zombies weren't real!
. . . and it said "Satan is good, Satan is my pal. I want to kill everyone."
Can I bum a sig?
Alas, you beat me to posting. Glad to see people remembering the Dirk Gently books. I know that I love them.
:)
Anyway, can something fictional really be prior art?
DNA, by it's very nature, has DRM built-in! Your DNA is unique and won't work without medication in another human being. That's unfortunate because all my DNA has been playing is jazz. I want something else damn it!
The game.
I just registered the "13256278887989457651018865901401704640" numerical sequence with the Reprobate Intellectual Property (RIP.sux) of America. Maybe now your outlandish free-speech can be legally suppressed by perversive dejure sustaining our mediocrity republic.
IOW::TAI [there were no spelling errors]
Next time, for gods' sake, elect a flaming Bush!
!HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
This may be a neat concept but it is never going to be in high enough demand for these guys to make any money from it. I'm sure there are several people already producing "music" like this and the patent won't be able to touch them because of prior art. The idea of getting music from a DNA sequence sounds cool but it is really just some sort of lame gimmick. If they want the patent, let them have it. No sane person would really expect to make any money off of this. Lame.
Contact: R. D. King or A. Karwath So what now, pubpat with it?
...where do parents apply for copyright protection of the DNA they assembled to make their children? After all, they own the copyright for the next few decades thanks to Disney, the RIAA, MPAA, and all those other leech organizations. Why should parents be left out of the mix?
Next thing you know it'll be sibling rivalries over who has the better DNA for music, and Johnny will complain when Susie makes #1 and he can't get on the charts. Either way, their parents will be rich.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
So if my DNA sequence sounds like the new Fergie album, does this mean I can sue Interscope for copyright infringement?
This technique sounds like a subset of serial composition. In serial composition, a set (sometimes called a "row") is used to determine melody, harmony, rhythm, dynamics, or other elements of the music.
T O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7247782.PN.&OS=PN/72477 82&RS=PN/7247782
...with serial composition (aka serialism)
Compare the language of the patent
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
In the simplest method, each of the DNA nucleotides A, C, T, and G can be assigned a specific musical note. The data stream of nucleotides can then be transcribed into a data stream of musical notes. Alternatively, the nucleotide sequence can first be decoded to an amino acid sequence, whereby the twenty amino acids can be each assigned to a specific musical note. Variations can be used to produce chords, to specify rhythms, tone, volume, to generate melodic music and harmonic music, and the like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialism
is a technique for composition that uses sets to describe musical elements, and allows the manipulation of those sets. Serialism is often, though not universally, held to begin with twelve-tone technique, which uses a set of the 12 notes of the chromatic scale to form a row (a nonrepeating arrangement of the 12 tones of the chromatic scale) as the unifying basis for a composition's melody, harmony, structural progressions, and variations. When not used synonymously, serialism differs from twelve-tone technique in that any number of elements from any musical dimension (called "parameters") may be ordered, such as duration, register, dynamics, or timbre.
I'm going to patent my DNA. If these guys try to use any sequences that appear in it, I'll sue the pants off them! Buahaha.
Bag Pipes are the only instrument that comes to mind that could play the melodies of DNA.
At my undergrad class back in 1989 we had a professor who played us music from DNA and started to dance to it in front of the class. He was a bit strange but was say that as researcher in stead of reading sequences we (as researchers) would listen to DNA music to understand different sequences. Yea prior art.
I have been using nucleotide sequences to generate music since 1987 and I'm curious to know how this patent will affect my research, the goal of which is to explore isomorphism in structural patterns between musical and DNA structures. Like most types of algorithmic music, the output is not likely to hit the top of the charts.
so please bring back elvis!
Music can be arbitrarily interpreted from anything, I'm sure one could even do the reverse and create a genome out of music. Might turn out to be a retarded frog fish, but most likely nothing at all, nevertheless. This should be one of those 'rejected due to obviousness' patent attempts.
So in the future, "I rock!" will be a scientifically verifiable claim!
OH FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! They'll let people patent any old obvious thing now! >:(
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I just patented *everything*.
ps. best story on patents, ever:
http://www.philsalin.com/patents.html
See http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/07 /the-future-of-m.html
Bye,
Oliver