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
That's the problem with arguing the ridiculous... | 269 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That's the problem with arguing the ridiculous...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 15 2013 @ 05:01 PM EDT

... it's hard to uphold the argument when someone moves away from the deliberate confusion to clear examples.

You state:

what Myriad has claimed is a particular chemical in isolation
But that describes our biological forms:
    Chemicals being the life blood
The fact you consider one of the gene's in DNA to be a chemical doesn't alter the reality that it is part of nature.

It may very well be part of the greater whole and may - or may not - occur naturally in nature in segregation. That doesn't alter the reality that it is still natural.

The cell once-upon-a-time wasn't known. It was theorized and the creation of the microscope helped prove the theory. The microscope was patentable subject matter.

Not the Cell!

And just because someone is greedy enough to want to argue that the complex cell can not exist in nature alone - does't alter the reality it shouldn't be patentable subject matter to begin with!

All my humble opinion of course. We'll just have to wait to see where the Supremes weigh in to see which of us is more closely aligned.

RAS

[ 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 )