News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synth... by andrewfong on Thursday June 13, 2013 @01:16PM (#5875236)
That's an interesting scenario given the recent ruling in Bowman v. Monsanto. If planting the offspring of synthetic Monsanto seeds infringes Monsanto's patents, then by extension, conceiving the offspring of a person with synthetic DNA could infringe patents as well.

In practice, this would be limited by the 14th Amendment. The prohibition against slavery trumps patent law, period. But I'm curious how far biotech companies would go before they got shut down.

EDIT: As pointed out below, 13th not 14th. My bad. Although due process in 14th would probably kick in as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synth... by dragonwriter on Thursday June 13, 2013 @01:19PM (#5875248)
> In practice, this would be limited by the 14th Amendment. The prohibition against slavery trumps patent law, period.

The prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude (except as punishment for a crime) is the 13th Amendment, not the 14th Amendment.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synth... by Symmetry on Thursday June 13, 2013 @05:19PM (#5876657)
It's possible that conceiving in those circumstances could be copyright infringement, but that's just a civil tort. So the parents might get sued for lots of money, but there wouldn't be any claims against the child. I don't see how slavery enters into it.

I'd hope that a court would hold differently with human reproduction than Bowman v. Monsanto, but even if they don't it wouldn't be anything to do with the 13th Amendment.

[ Parent | on HN ]