Supreme Court says natural human genes can't be patented

page: 2
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Where will this all lead?

Will the children of people who are implanted with these cells, one day need to pay these companies royalties for the genetically modified superior DNA carried on in their bodies...?

And what if they can't pay?
Indentured servitude to the parent corporation?

Will these Super Genes slowly but surely take the place of all natural human genes? Until there are no natural humans left?

...




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


'Bout time.

Thanks for the report. S&F&



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
whoa, I don't know if this is as good a ruling as you think....
there's more to it, any CREATED(or artificial) human genes CAN be patented....
and it's the created genes that will likely cure certain diseases....

Someone could create the gene that would completely prevent cancer, or extend lives indefinitely, and they would hold a patent for it!!!

It's common sense that natural genes shouldn't be patented....the full ruling was a huge loss!!!




edit on 14-6-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
whoa, I don't know if this is as good a ruling as you think....
there's more to it, any CREATED(or artificial) human genes CAN be patented....
and it's the created genes that will likely cure certain diseases....

Someone could create the gene that would completely prevent cancer, or extend lives indefinitely, and they would hold a patent for it!!!

It's common sense that natural genes shouldn't be patented....the full ruling was a huge loss!!!


Meh, I'm cool with that. It's like medications...you invent it, you get rights to it for 20 years. However, what I am concerned with is geneticists "creating" a designer gene and are then granted a patent on it; only later do we find out that their patented gene actually exists naturally. How do we deal with that? Revoke the patent? This entire DNA patenting thing should probably be shelved until we discover and understand every genetic variation in existence.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
whoa, I don't know if this is as good a ruling as you think....
there's more to it, any CREATED(or artificial) human genes CAN be patented....
and it's the created genes that will likely cure certain diseases....

Someone could create the gene that would completely prevent cancer, or extend lives indefinitely, and they would hold a patent for it!!!

It's common sense that natural genes shouldn't be patented....the full ruling was a huge loss!!!




edit on 14-6-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


If a company goes through the money and resources to create a synthetic DNA strand then why shouldn't they hold the patent?



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
How the hell do you patent a gene?

That's like patenting blue eyes or red hair! Black or white skin!


Patents should only apply to inventions, not discoveries...

ETA: Maybe we were created by ETs and they are secretly running this company and are trying to lawfully reclaim ownership of the product they created?

Stupid as it sounds, it's the only thing that makes moral sense...
edit on 15/6/13 by NuclearPaul because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics
 
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join