|
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
The Supremes recognise their lack of knowledge.
From what I've seen the ruling simply said "cDNA *may* be patentable, we
have insufficient evidence to decide".
So when it comes up, and they have evidence, they will decide.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 09:15 PM EDT |
I think a cDNA could be patentable if it has been specifically modified versus
the consensus wildtype.
For example, if researchers swapped in/out a few nucleotides, they could in
theory fine-tune the binding to the mRNA. Such fine-tuning could, again in
theory, result in a test so targeted that the testing platform could be
simplified.
At other times, the cDNA could perhaps be customised to bind a combination of
mRNAs.
But certainly:
mRNA -> cDNA is a relatively simple procedure, reduced to practice. They were
teaching us how to do it during my MolBiol BSc back in the later 80's. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|