|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 01:41 PM EDT |
... as you argue...
... to some of us it's entirely insane to allow
someone to patent body parts.
Not to mention the fact that it's biologic
from nature. Occurring naturally is not supposed to be patentable subject
matter at all!
You want to patent a mechanical device that can replace
the finger: fine!
But to patent body parts (whether you want to use the
"doesn't naturally occur alone in nature" or not) is abhorrent to some of
us.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rcsteiner on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
Am I? I'm not sure that's true. They are all part of the same general class of
items, are they not -- items which are naturally occurring structures in a human
body?
Just because some of the structures which form the human body are harder to
discover than others doesn't make then any less natural, whether it be inside
their normal environment, or outside that environment in a lab.
---
-Rich Steiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rcsteiner on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
The claimed chemicals, the claimed acids, of the Myriad patents,
were not previously known.
How does a simple lack of previous
knowledge make them patentable?
I can see patenting the isolation process,
perhaps, assuming that process involved a certain amount of non-obviousness, but
patenting the substance itself??---
-Rich Steiner >>>---> Mableton, GA
USA
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 16 2013 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
I don't know whether you're just misinformed or trying to recreate history in
the way that pleases you. Oh, let me guess, you went to Yahoo!<
/a>
The claimed chemicals, the claimed acids, of the Myriad
patents, were not previously known.
You are wrong. Do some actual
research on BRCA1, just like Mary-Claire King did.
Oh, yeah, back in 1990 at Berkley she was the one who linked a particular gene
to breast cancer. It was probably a short time after that that the gene she
named it
BRCA1. Knowing the gene would mean
that the relevant base pairs would be known.
Just to make sure you get the
message.
The claimed chemicals, the claimed acids, of the Myriad patents
were previously known before Myriad existed.
You're not as clever as
you think you are. The finger analogy looks pretty reasonable.
j [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
