So, if it's decided that genes and/or DNA can be patented, I guess I'll have to patent my own unique genes and DNA....then if the police state decides to use it against me in some way, I can sue them for infringement!
If a gene reprodues itself via normal processes does it viloate the patirnt law? If I had a gene unique to my physolgy could a large company patient it and charge me for having said unique gene?
It's high time that the patent system was reigned in. The patent and copyright laws are wildly out of control. The laws serve nothing more than to make lawyers money and to stifle innovation.
A company, for example, should not be allow to file a patent covered a general situation. An excellent example of which is the gesture system used to control smart phones. Apple has filed numerous lawsuits trying to keep other manufacturers from using a gesture based interface.
Apple would also like us to believe they own the patent on a rectangle with rounded corners.
I don't mean to pick on Apple as I do love their products but they are such an easy target.
Additionally, it's sickening to see so many patents being approved for things that were clearly in the public domain for many years.
Hopefully the court stomps on the patent system in a big way with this ruling.
Otherwise, I agree... especially regarding Apple. Especially as Apple sued Samsung for copying... when it was Apple that copied Xerox 30 years earlier... and Xerox lost its lawsuit. But Xerox didn't have any patents.
And having read some of those patents, the wording is glib - and could be used to cover tangential issues. Right down to communication protocols that go back decades, but slightly reworded to fit what happens inside the phone. But it's the same process, which has been around for a LONG time... ugh...
How can you patent a gene? It exists in nature. It would be like asking for a patent on a pine tree just because it exists and nobody else has patented it. Stupid.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
A company, for example, should not be allow to file a patent covered a general situation. An excellent example of which is the gesture system used to control smart phones. Apple has filed numerous lawsuits trying to keep other manufacturers from using a gesture based interface.
Apple would also like us to believe they own the patent on a rectangle with rounded corners.
I don't mean to pick on Apple as I do love their products but they are such an easy target.
Additionally, it's sickening to see so many patents being approved for things that were clearly in the public domain for many years.
Hopefully the court stomps on the patent system in a big way with this ruling.
Otherwise, I agree... especially regarding Apple. Especially as Apple sued Samsung for copying... when it was Apple that copied Xerox 30 years earlier... and Xerox lost its lawsuit. But Xerox didn't have any patents.
And having read some of those patents, the wording is glib - and could be used to cover tangential issues. Right down to communication protocols that go back decades, but slightly reworded to fit what happens inside the phone. But it's the same process, which has been around for a LONG time... ugh...
The patent system is grossly skewed...