|
Powergamz1 -> RE: patenting human genes (4/14/2013 5:31:37 PM)
|
I'm much more up on copyright than on patent law, but isn't there a 'derivative works' parallel in patents? I can think of a whole lot of things with a patent that look an awful lot like other things...
And IIRC the crux of the DNA arguments has to do with gene therapy and gene splicing, so it seems that an 'wholly original' bar could never be cleared... but those case have gone forward.
quote:
ORIGINAL: muhly22222
It really shouldn't be. I'll admit to not being an intellectual property expert, but that might help me out a little bit here. It allows me to step away from the legal jargon and look at it from a common-sense perspective while still applying a legal framework.
Patents are granted on things that are created by humans. The creations have to be original.
Genes are not created by identifiable humans. And genes are replicated in millions of humans across the earth, although gene sequences vary widely. There's no originality in it. And merely isolating it doesn't make it a creation. It's still something that occurs naturally. If scientists were able to create wholly new genes in a lab, that would be patentable, but not genes that are naturally occurring in humans.
|
|
|
|
