decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Woman needs Monsanto licence to have children? | 559 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Woman needs Monsanto licence to have children?
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Saturday, January 19 2013 @ 12:28 PM EST
I seriously doubt someone will successfully sue over that (notice the key word
successfully, I don't put it past someone to try). It's going to be rather hard
to convince a judge that you are infringing a patent merely by having children.
And if so, they have to prove that the gene was passed to children (maybe a
50-50 chance with one parent having the therapy, possibly less depending on
location of the gene),
so that would mandate a genomic fishing expedition. Expression of the gene
could
be limited as well, if it is a recessive trait.

More importantly, this treatment would have to affect the germ-line cells to be
passed at all. Changing "regular" (what are called somatic cells) will
do nothing for offspring (bringing up an interesting problem for the prospect of
gene therapy). The abstract you linked involved intramuscular injection, so the
offspring of those mice would not have the gene.

Also, we are a ways from treating people in this way. These are experiments
with
lab animals. FDA approval would take awhile.

Put all of that together and I don't think it will fly, but stranger things
have
happened.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )