Comments on: Should Firms Be Able to Own Your Genes?
Add a Comment
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- The consequences of the patents that you described are correct, but your sensational statements about the gene were shamefully stupid and ignorant. The company does not own your genes; if it makes an artificial gene that is identical to one that occurs naturally, it can get a patent on the process of making it and on the "product by process." In other words, the only genes they own are the ones that are made by their process. Diamonds, for example, would be analogous to the genes. If somebody makes a diamond artificially, he can get a patent protecting his process and all diamonds made with his process, but his patent does not cover naturally-occurring diamonds. You need to consult people who know about subjects you talk about. I expect a very long apology and explanation to your viewers next week.
- Reply to this comment
- Owning humans which includes all parts was outlawed when slavery was outlawed. We have digressed.
- Reply to this comment
- Oh stop it. Judge Sweet's decision ignored -- at best -- long held, controlling law. His decision will be overturned, as it should, and we'll get back to normal. Purified, isolated DNA molecules do not exist in nature and are, if useful, patentable "compositions of matter." Read the comments to the post here http://j.mp/bssGjw and this analysis http://j.mp/cUWgpc .
- Reply to this comment
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
