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
Gene, why don't you try out for the Dallas Mavericks? | 545 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Open Letter to the SCOTUS and Groklaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 10:23 AM EDT
No it is a product of Michelangelo. A sculpture called David.
More correctly is a sculpture portraying Michelangelo's concept of David ( not
having seen him ) represented by his model ( which as Michelangelo was a product
of nature. The material used ( marble I think ) is a product of nature.
Any more questions to the professor?
You know that a fool can ask more questions than ten professors can answer.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Better question: Is the item linked biologically Human
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 11:50 AM EDT

There's this funny little thing with humanity. It's been there as far back as we can track in history:

    We don't like our bodies being owned by another human being!
The image you present is a marble sculpture. It, in itself, will be treated differently then the human being who may have modeled for the sculpture.

You can destroy the sculpture and you'll never be sentenced for murder... even if members of the Art World declare murder.

You can destroy the human model.... and you can bet you'll face charges of murder.

You can call us names (grokpots) and you can try and obfuscate the primary problem some of us have with patenting genes..... but I seriously doubt you'll ever convince us, or SCOTUS, that being able to own a human body part is acceptable for a civilized Society.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That depends on what you think you're looking at.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 01:16 PM EDT
If you are looking at a chunk of marble, then yes, it is a product of nature,
and can be found all over the planet.

If you are looking at a sculpted rendition of a man, then it is not something
that occurs in nature. It is an article of MAN-ufacture. (Get it?
MAN-ufacture, 'cause it's a sculpture of a MAN? =D )

Anyway... you are obviously trying to draw a parallel between sculpted marble,
and extracted genes. If the naturally-occurring genes are merely extracted from
their containing DNA, then yes, they're still a product of nature. If you
arrange them into a sculpture of, say, a penguin, then your work of art is no
longer a product of nature.




[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Open Letter to the SCOTUS and Groklaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT
The item showed by the linked picture certainly isn't a product of nature. This,
however, doesn't help your point, as you do not compare equivalent concepts.

An equivalent comparison would be the following:

In the case you present:
Origin of the material - Earth crust
Raw material - Marble, cut out from the earth crust
Product shaped by man - Statue of David

In the Myriad case:
Origin of the material - Chromosomes
Raw material - Genes, cut out from the chromosomes
Product shaped by man - ?

The isolated BRCA genes are not different from the raw marble block from which
David was shaped. To obtain an equivalent of this sculpture, you would need to
modify the BRCA genes, by removing/adding/modifying DNA base pairs.

The product of such modifications then certainly could be called man-made and be
entitled to some protection (under the current patent system). But only for the
specific modifications made, the same way this specific representation of David
does not preclude artists from shaping other sculptures of the same man.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

SCOTUS: Is the Statue of David patent eligible?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 03:27 PM EDT

Or is it considered merely an "expression in fixed form" and therefore fails being basic 101 patent eligible and falls under Copyright Law instead?

Personally, I believe the Statue of David fails basic 101 patent eligibility because - other then philosophy of thought and esthetic enjoyment - a statue is not useful.

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Additionally, it also fails 101 patent eligibility for another reason.

To pass basic 101 patent eligibility, one must have one of the four basic attributes (for lack of a better word):

  1. Process
  2. Machine
  3. Manufacture
  4. Compositio n of matter
It's beyond logical reason that the Statue of David is either a process, machine or Manufacture. So the closest the Statue of David could get is a Composition of Matter. But Marble is not a new composition of matter.

And so, the Statue of David is neither one of the four attributes which patents apply to, nor (if it were, such as being made from cake ingredients) is it useful.

As a result, this entire question (if my opinion is accurate) is based on a completely false premise:

    The mistaken premise that the Statue of David is patent eligible!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Gene, why don't you try out for the Dallas Mavericks?
Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 05:48 PM EDT
You stand a better chance at making the team than you do of
persuading anyone other than patent extremists.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Open Letter to the SCOTUS and Groklaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 10:37 AM EDT
Clearly a gall stone is a natural object while it still is within the gall
bladder, when extracted by a surgeon it suddenly become a man-made object!

Question: Can a senseless man speak sense?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

False comparison
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 02:06 PM EDT
The correct comparison with isolated DNA would be just an unmodified rock
that had broken off a cliff, not a carved statue. Myriad just hacked a piece of

DNA out of the genome, they did nothing corresponding to carving.

You do know that he never even had a copyright on that statue? What does
that do to your theory that nothing is ever created without a government-
guaranteed monopoly?

[ 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 )