|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:14 PM EDT |
Yes, I thought of that too. If I can make a new strand of
DNA that doesn't exist in nature, what good is it unless it
results in something useful? Or maybe it is useful, but I
haven't discovered a use yet? Do I patent the cDNA or the
result? Can different DNA strands, one in nature and one
not, result in the same output?
Patenting DNA seems like patenting language to me. But I
like the thought of DNA being a manufacturing tool. The
fine point is that DNA is both the expression AND the tool.
Uncharted territory, I'm afraid.
I've always chided MS for blurring the line between
executable code and data, and here Mother Nature's been
doing it forever!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
Remember, the cDNA is only getting a pass on the 101 Subject Matter threshold.
It would still have to pass the novelty and non-obviousness tests, and
non-obvious is pretty much automatically toast for replicating the function of
an existing gene. For posterity, I hereby post my "Teaching" on the
subject, and contribute it to the Public Domain for all eternity:
FOR NaturalGeneX WHERE Manifests(NaturalGeneX, a desirable effect or
characteristic) DO
DNAPattern = CurrentConventionalAnalysisMethod(NaturalGeneX);
cDNAPattern = FilterEvolutionaryFlotsam(DNAPattern);
MyGeneX = Sequence(cDNAPattern);
END FOR
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:20 PM EDT |
"In that sense, it's the protein that should be patented, not the method
used to encode that protein. In industry, when you invent a new tool, do you
patent the tool, or do you patent 'the mould that makes the tool'? You patent
the tool!"
You patent everything: The tool, the method of making the tool, the method of
using the tool, the mold used to make the tool and the method of making the
mold.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
I don't recall whether they were actually producing the protein or just testing
whether or not the attempt to copy a specific DNA strand (gene) succeeded; i.e.,
if the person has the gene.
I can imagine the latter process, in which case the protein isn't required.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
