Authored by: MadTom1999 on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 10:20 AM EDT |
The film 'The Jerk' - an oldie from way back when Steve Martin was funny - seems
to set a precedent here![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
This was my thought also. If they produced this gene they
should be held liable, or sue ?Who? for infringement.
You are responsible for harmful products / conditions on
your property and must take reasonable precautions to
prevent harm. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
Is Apple responsible for damage done by round rectangles? Is Edison responsible
for damages done by lightbulbs (or whatever improvement on them he 'invented')?
Owning the patent and owning the item are different things. So while I don't
know enough law to say if they could possibly be theoretically sued for damages
done by there use of the patent, they shouldn't be liable for damage done by the
gene in general.
Also, it is my understanding they only patented the gene in isolation. So... the
damage the patented item has done is 0 no? Or at least only too their own lab
rats (presuming you respected their patent).
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
Myriad sues parents for causing the genes to be copied? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|