You're talking of fingers being patent-eligible and then saying the patent wouldn't work because we know of fingers previously.

I'm talking fingers shouldn't (if they actually are) be part of patentability in the first place!

Prove fingers are not a natural occurance of nature and so should be patent eligible.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• Show me a finger growing in isolation. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 03:34 PM EDT
  • Ahh - so you can't - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 03:59 PM EDT
    • I don't have to. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 04:07 PM EDT
      • Yes they are - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 04:11 PM EDT
        • Fingers separated in a rock slide are known - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 04:40 PM EDT
          • That's the problem with arguing the ridiculous... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 05:01 PM EDT
  • You want to see a finger? - Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 10:28 PM EDT

They chemicals claimed by Myriad, the isolate, were not known.

Myriad did not discover a chemical. The basic structure of DNA has been known for more than fifty years and I studied it about that long ago. There are only two characters in the DNA alphabet: adenine-thymine, cytosine- guanine.

All Myriad has done is patent a particular combination of those two characters.

They may have patentable subject matter at their disposal, but a strand of DNA is not it. It's as if van Leeuwenhoek had patented blood cells.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• So no drug is patentable or should be patentable? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 19 2013 @ 01:00 PM EDT