Re:Supreme Court’s Myriad decision is deeply confused over cDNA
by dnautics on Friday June 14, 2013 @10:45AM
(#5880186)
wrong. The claimed patent is on BRCA1/2 DNA, not cDNA. Process doesn't matter for a molecule. DNA is DNA is DNA. It doesn't matter if it's made via the cDNA process. It doesn't matter if it's assembled de novo using oligonucleotide assembly. The MOLECULE is patented, not the process.
Again. It's the molecule that is patented, not the process.
I'm going to say it once more. It's the molecule that is patented. Not the information. Not the process. The MOLECULE.
"If the gene information previously exists in nature, ALL equivalent forms (DNA, mRNA, cDNA, even tRNA) should be excluded from patentability, because they are beyond obvious once you know the nucleotide sequence, and they are equivalent (in terms of information theory). "
Fine, that's what you believe. However, that is not what the law is. Molecule patents say nothing about information, "equivalent" forms, and have a different definition of 'obvious' than you do. There's a very good reason for them to be defined the way they are, too, because you have to be careful when dealing with legalities. The law has to be (and often fails at being) explicit with these concepts that can be gray, because the way you're treating them is very ill-defined.
Again. It's the molecule that is patented, not the process.
I'm going to say it once more. It's the molecule that is patented. Not the information. Not the process. The MOLECULE.
"If the gene information previously exists in nature, ALL equivalent forms (DNA, mRNA, cDNA, even tRNA) should be excluded from patentability, because they are beyond obvious once you know the nucleotide sequence, and they are equivalent (in terms of information theory). "
Fine, that's what you believe. However, that is not what the law is. Molecule patents say nothing about information, "equivalent" forms, and have a different definition of 'obvious' than you do. There's a very good reason for them to be defined the way they are, too, because you have to be careful when dealing with legalities. The law has to be (and often fails at being) explicit with these concepts that can be gray, because the way you're treating them is very ill-defined.