|
Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 08:24 AM EST |
The genes are prior art, although I could see patenting the means for
transplanting those genes from one organism to another. However, no-one is
making any new genes, so the genes themselves are prior art.
mc[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 12:57 PM EST |
Monsantos 'Roundup' gene was found in the sludge ponds of its Roundup
manufacturing facility. Nature did what they couldn't do. So they spliced one
natural gene into a bunch of other natural genes. This should not be patentable.
See any parallels with software patents?
Synthetic genes don't occur in nature. They could be unique and non-obvious.
They could be patentable. Offspring of GM plants could completely take over a
species. This is dangerous. The history of science is littered with the remains
of ideas developed and implemented without regard for the consequences. $adly,
$cience $till operates under this delusion: throw it at the wall and see if it
sticks. Look at the _known_ side effects of the drugs marketed on TV. Some can
lead to death. Would you trust your life with these? It amazes me.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 05:38 PM EST |
but this case isn't about the validity of the patent, altho' I think
most of us here agree that it looks dodgy. Bowman accepts
the patent is valid because he signed an agreement that it was.
Bowman's complaint is that Monsanto are using that agreement
as a waiver of patent exhaustion, which he claims is illegal.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|