[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton

The patent office allows patenting of existing genes.  For example, if you want to make a drug that acts on a gene that someone has patented, you have to pay a royalty.  Cerebrex? is a example of this current idiocy.  Or if you want to test for an occurrence of a disease causing gene, you have to pay royalties to the patent holder.  
See Technology Review  Sept/Oct 2000 for articles:
The Great Gene Grab
Toward Sharing the Genome 

and an opposing opinion (not very good in my judgment ;-))

The Case for Gene Patents

An tongue-in-cheek observation, once all the genes are patented, will you have to secure licensing from all the various holders before you can have children?

As for your observation about a laser, I would agree that you could patent a specific device for generating of a coherent beam.  However, you should not be able to patent the idea of generating a coherent beam or patent a naturally occurring process.  That is akin to patenting burning hydrogen to create water.  Wow, I could patent fire and water at a single stroke ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 3:07 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton

Jeme A Brelin wrote:

> I do believe there are several standing patents on naturally occurring
> chemicals, genes, and even whole plants.

That's very odd.  What about the prior art... by nature.  Then again
most of us would argue that a LASER would be patentable and they exist
in nature.  I can see patenting a refining process but for naturally
occurring chemicals I don't see how one meets the "novel" or "original"