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
One Reason why the Supreme Court Should Go Againt Myriad | 189 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
One Reason why the Supreme Court Should Go Againt Myriad
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 02:17 PM EDT

Because it all boils down to:

    Patenting a human body part
No matter how small a slice, the human body should never be patentable subject matter.
    First: it was created by nature and we are all almost 100% identical. At the larger scope, we have hair - even if it doesn't show. At the smaller scope, how much of the human dna is different in the biggest difference when comparing two homans?
And even if a single human had one thing that was different:
    Second: to allow a patent on part of our body - no matter how small - is to allow physical slavery to exist - it may not be full, ultimate enslavement, but it is slavey none-the-less because it allows one human to "own" another human (no matter how small a part)
At point does the human body suddenly be labled "not human"?
    Limb? Finger? Skin? Cell?
    Mitochondria? DNA? DNA slice?
It's all still part of the physical human body. All of the arguments made that should "allow a dna slice to be patent eligible subject matter" applies to "allow blood plasma that is separated from whole blood as patentable subject matter".

As for the discussion surrounding the bacterium - to steal a line from Young Frankenstein:

    Humans, with very few exceptions, are not bacterium

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Bah!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 04:19 PM EDT
Translation: We've got lots of big words to hide the fact that this is a bit of
nature, and that we haven't invented anything, but big words are expensive so we
should be able to lock up nature and charge people to see our big words. And
besides, just look at those flowcharts!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I called Patently-O when I read the title!
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 10:56 PM EDT
And I was right! Score!!!

To me, this is just another land-grab of "majestic"
proportions, to use Jimi Hendrix' term. Meaning that I can't
make any more sense out if it than I could Jimi's lyrics in
"Third Stone from the Sun".

I notice that not once does the article examine the effects
on the public, which has granted temporary patents to
promote its own interests.

As someone else noted - human is human, and nature is
nature. There ain't no way around it.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ 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 )