|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
No it is a product of Michelangelo. A sculpture called David.
More correctly is a sculpture portraying Michelangelo's concept of David ( not
having seen him ) represented by his model ( which as Michelangelo was a product
of nature. The material used ( marble I think ) is a product of nature.
Any more questions to the professor?
You know that a fool can ask more questions than ten professors can answer.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
There's this funny little thing with humanity. It's been there as far back
as we can track in history:
We don't like our bodies being owned by another
human being!
The image you present is a marble sculpture. It, in itself,
will be treated differently then the human being who may have modeled for the
sculpture.
You can destroy the sculpture and you'll never be sentenced
for murder... even if members of the Art World declare murder.
You can
destroy the human model.... and you can bet you'll face charges of
murder.
You can call us names (grokpots) and you can try and obfuscate
the primary problem some of us have with patenting genes..... but I seriously
doubt you'll ever convince us, or SCOTUS, that being able to own a human body
part is acceptable for a civilized Society.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
If you are looking at a chunk of marble, then yes, it is a product of nature,
and can be found all over the planet.
If you are looking at a sculpted rendition of a man, then it is not something
that occurs in nature. It is an article of MAN-ufacture. (Get it?
MAN-ufacture, 'cause it's a sculpture of a MAN? =D )
Anyway... you are obviously trying to draw a parallel between sculpted marble,
and extracted genes. If the naturally-occurring genes are merely extracted from
their containing DNA, then yes, they're still a product of nature. If you
arrange them into a sculpture of, say, a penguin, then your work of art is no
longer a product of nature.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
The item showed by the linked picture certainly isn't a product of nature. This,
however, doesn't help your point, as you do not compare equivalent concepts.
An equivalent comparison would be the following:
In the case you present:
Origin of the material - Earth crust
Raw material - Marble, cut out from the earth crust
Product shaped by man - Statue of David
In the Myriad case:
Origin of the material - Chromosomes
Raw material - Genes, cut out from the chromosomes
Product shaped by man - ?
The isolated BRCA genes are not different from the raw marble block from which
David was shaped. To obtain an equivalent of this sculpture, you would need to
modify the BRCA genes, by removing/adding/modifying DNA base pairs.
The product of such modifications then certainly could be called man-made and be
entitled to some protection (under the current patent system). But only for the
specific modifications made, the same way this specific representation of David
does not preclude artists from shaping other sculptures of the same man.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
Or is it considered merely an "expression in fixed form" and therefore fails
being basic 101 patent eligible and falls under Copyright Law
instead?
Personally, I believe the Statue of David fails basic 101 patent
eligibility because - other then philosophy of thought and esthetic enjoyment -
a statue is not useful.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any
new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject
to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Additionally, it
also fails 101 patent eligibility for another reason.
To pass basic 101
patent eligibility, one must have one of the four basic attributes (for lack of
a better
word):
- Process
- Machine
- Manufacture
- Compositio
n of matter
It's beyond logical reason that the Statue of David is
either a process, machine or Manufacture. So the closest the Statue of David
could get is a Composition of Matter. But Marble is not a new composition of
matter.
And so, the Statue of David is neither one of the four attributes
which patents apply to, nor (if it were, such as being made from cake
ingredients) is it useful.
As a result, this entire question (if my
opinion is accurate) is based on a completely false premise:
The mistaken
premise that the Statue of David is patent eligible!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 05:48 PM EDT |
You stand a better chance at making the team than you do of
persuading anyone other than patent extremists.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
Clearly a gall stone is a natural object while it still is within the gall
bladder, when extracted by a surgeon it suddenly become a man-made object!
Question: Can a senseless man speak sense?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
The correct comparison with isolated DNA would be just an unmodified rock
that had broken off a cliff, not a carved statue. Myriad just hacked a piece of
DNA out of the genome, they did nothing corresponding to carving.
You do know that he never even had a copyright on that statue? What does
that do to your theory that nothing is ever created without a government-
guaranteed monopoly?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|