Re:Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synth...
by rflrob on Thursday June 13, 2013 @12:44PM
(#5875013)
I am a biologist (who regularly sequences cDNA), and it is properly understood to mean complementary DNA. In fact, the syllabus' description of the process is far enough from what the process of actually making cDNA is like that it seems to me there could be grounds for a challenge, even though as others have noted, cDNA is no longer widely used for these kinds of diagnostics.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synth...
by michaelhoffman on Thursday June 13, 2013 @04:51PM
(#5876483)
The syllabus is not part of the decision and has no legal effect (it says this at the top of every syllabus), so wouldn't be grounds for a challenge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Detroit_Timber...