I haven't read the LOTR triology in many, many, years, but I seem to recall a completely pitch-black character - a good-guy, protector of the ring-bearer, and representing several ideas of perfection.
Chakrabarty engineered a new non-naturally occuring strain of bacterium.
The question at hand is whether (naturally-occuring) DNA, genes should be patentable.
Again, from Diamond v Chakrabarty (notice the use of the word "not"):
This is not to suggest that 101 has no limits or that it embraces every discovery. The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948); O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 112-121 (1854); Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1853). Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2.; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are "manifestations of . . . nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none." Funk, supra, at 130.
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.:
...For patents cannot issue for the discovery of the phenomena of nature. The qualities of these bacteria, like the heat of the sun, electricity, or the qualities of metals, are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men. They are manifestations of laws of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none. He who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes. If there is to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end.
35 USCS 101 governing issuance of patents does not embrace every discovery, nor is it without limit, laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable; discoveries that are manifestations of nature free to all men and reserved exclusively to none are not patentable. Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) [101, n 38]
Most of the patents are for use of DNA sequences in diagnotics assays. A general assay procedure itself might be patentable, but I'd think the hybridization of DNA or it's related biological functions would be considered manifestations of nature.
If a company invents a treatment they should patent that.
For this same reason, several scientific journals require that researchers agree to make their materials (strains, clones, etc) available to all.
If you break that (written) promise you won't be publishing in that journal again. I wonder if any publically-funded grants have such a clause? (share or no more tax dollars for you!)
In labs I have worked in, it was considered an honor to receive such requests for the products of your research. And there was always the constant dread of being scooped by the competition...
Slashdot Mirror
Who's in *your* wallet?
...equating darkness of skin with evil...
I haven't read the LOTR triology in many, many, years, but I seem to recall a completely pitch-black
character - a good-guy, protector of the ring-bearer, and representing several ideas of perfection.
Someone help me with the character's name?
Yes. How difficult could it become to collect royalties if the service was overseas/off-shore?
So? The ocean is wet.
Chakrabarty engineered a new non-naturally occuring strain of bacterium.
The question at hand is whether (naturally-occuring) DNA, genes should be patentable.
Again, from Diamond v Chakrabarty (notice the use of the word "not"):
This is not to suggest that 101 has no limits or that it embraces every discovery. The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948); O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 112-121 (1854); Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1853). Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2.; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are "manifestations of . . . nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none." Funk, supra, at 130.
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.:
...For patents cannot issue for the discovery of the phenomena of nature. The qualities of these bacteria, like the heat of the sun, electricity, or the qualities of metals, are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men. They are manifestations of laws of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none. He who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes. If there is to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end.
35 USCS 101 governing issuance of patents does not embrace every discovery, nor is it without limit, laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable; discoveries that are manifestations of nature free to all men and reserved exclusively to none are not patentable. Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) [101, n 38]
Most of the patents are for use of DNA sequences in diagnotics assays. A general assay procedure itself might be patentable, but I'd think the hybridization of DNA or it's related biological functions would be considered manifestations of nature.
If a company invents a treatment they should patent that.
Someone needs to take these greedheads to court.
For this same reason, several scientific journals require that researchers agree to make their materials (strains, clones, etc) available to all.
If you break that (written) promise you won't be publishing in that journal again. I wonder if any publically-funded grants have such a clause? (share or no more tax dollars for you!)
In labs I have worked in, it was considered an honor to receive such requests for the products of your research. And there was always the constant dread of being scooped by the competition...
Competition is a good thing.
If this project is considered "creating life", and a creator of life is a god, then I AM A GOD!
I have removed genes and added synthetic DNA to a bacterium to produce a strain which had never before existed on earth.
So get down on your knees now and worship me!
Actually I consider both premises to be false.
There is not much new going on here - just hype, ignorance, and FUD.