Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
cDNA or "complementary" DNA is
man-
made
Unfortunately the Supremes and others have gotten this
part wrong but really this aspect is irrelevant to the case.
There is no
difference between RNA and cDNA by sheer
definition of the word
complementary (just a simple
conversion between RNA and DNA). The
discovery (1975 Nobel
prize) that certain viruses had an enzyme called
reverse transcriptase makes cDNA is made by
NATURE! Sure the
process has been adapted but it is
still a product of nature. The sole man-made
component is
still just putting all things into a test-tube and
waiting
for Nature to do the work for you. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
cDNA seems to be lawyer speak for is essentially RNA. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
I about spit my coffee out my nose when I read that the court
thought native DNA was not patentable, but cDNA could not be
excluded from patentability on the same grounds because it is
"man made". That makes about as much sense as saying that a
photocopy of a non-patentable document becomes patentable
because someone "invented" that copy.
I'm encouraged by this ruling overall, but the lack of
understanding on this is alarming.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- But I think - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 05:53 PM EDT
- cDNA - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 09:15 PM EDT
|