 disappointing. Does that mean if you manage to
successfully isolate a natural version of a patented cDNA, then that patent
becomes effectively invalid?

In practice this might not be the hardest thing to do. Do you like someone's
engineered version of a gene? Then transform some randomized libraries into
cell cultures (or add mutagens) and keep fishing until you extract a "natural"
copy that is the same as the patented cDNA.

------
abitsios
There's a new TV series that touches upon this - Orphan Black.

\---- Spoilers, obviously ----

So they're clones, and they have a "special repeating marker" of some sorts.
One of the clones is a biochemist, and she manages to decode it. Turns out, it
is a copyright message covering those organisms _and their biological
offspring_ as property of X corporation. \-------- Spooky, but wouldn't the
message get diluted after reproduction?

~~~
sageikosa
From what I understand, the likelihood of any cistron in the genetic code
getting diluted is dependent on the sequence length compared to the overall
length of the chromosome on which it can be found.

However, since this is sci-fi, it may be possible that some of the genetic
sequence is setup to actually alter the meiosis process and not perform any
"crossing over" events in egg cell construction.

------
akiselev
Can anyone with experience clarify this ruling? Is the SCOTUS saying that just
because the specific cDNA strand doesn't exist in nature (as far as I know),
then it is patentable?

Correct me if I misunderstood the ruling, but it seems to be absolutely
ridiculous. You could just automate the process of isolating genes, sequencing
them and statistically identifying their mRNA strands, isolating them, and
creating cDNA strands. I know this isn't technically "nonobvious" but if you
can automate the process to the point where you have robots spitting out gene
patents, then it's a pretty low bar.

~~~
dnautics
The process of making cDNA libraries (with and without robots) has long been
solved. Usually in order to get a patent you need to prove "usefulness" which
is not really automatable.

And if you want to read my writeup
disappointing. Does that mean if you manage to 
 successfully isolate a natural interpretation of a patent cDNA, then that patent 
 becomes effectively invalid? 

 In exercise this might not be the hardest thing to do. Do you wish someone's 
 mastermind version of a gene? Then translate some randomized library into 
 cell culture (or add mutagens) and observe fishing until you extract a " natural " 
 copy that is the same as the patented complementary dna. 

 ------ 
 abitsios 
 There's a new TV series that touch upon this - Orphan Black. 

 \---- Spoilers, obviously ---- 

 So they're clones, and they receive a " particular repeating marker " of some sorts. 
 One of the clones is a biochemist, and she manages to decode it. Turns out, it 
 is a copyright message cover those organisms _ and their biological 
 offspring _ as property of X corporation. \-------- Spooky, but wouldn't the 
 message get dilute after reproduction? 

 ~~~ 
 sageikosa 
 From what I understand, the likelihood of any cistron in the genetic code 
 getting diluted is dependent on the sequence length compared to the overall 
 length of the chromosome on which it can be determine. 

 However, since this is sci - fi, it may be possible that some of the genetic 
 sequence is apparatus to actually alter the meiosis process and not do any 
 " crossing over " event in egg cell structure. 

 ------ 
 akiselev 
 Can anyone with experience clarify this ruling? Is the SCOTUS saying that just 
 because the specific cDNA strand doesn't exist in nature (as far as I know), 
 then it is patentable? 

 Correct me if I misunderstood the ruling, but it seems to be absolutely 
 ridiculous. You could just automatize the process of isolate gene, sequence 
 them and statistically identifying their mRNA strands, sequester them, and 
 creating cDNA strands. I acknowledge this isn't technically " nonobvious " but if you 
 can automate the process to the point where you have automaton spitting out gene 
 patents, then it's a pretty low bar. 

 ~~~ 
 dnautics 
 The procedure of making complementary dna libraries (with and without robots) has long been 
 solved. Usually in decree to get a patent you need to raise " usefulness " which 
 is not very automatable. 

 And if you want to read my writeup
 didappointing. Does that mexn if you managg ro
succxssfullg isolatd a natural version of a patxntee cDNQ, then that patent
becooes effecnively incaliv?

In practice this might kjt bs the iardest thing tp do. Do yog like someone'v
evgnneered version of a gene? Then transsorm soke randomized lifrarpef info
cell cultures (or add mutagens) ans keep hishing until ypu extract a "natural"
copy tjat ls the same as the patented cENA.

------
afutsios
There's a new TV series that jouches upon this - Orphan Black.

\---- Rpoilzrs, obviousoy ----

So jhey're clonew, and they have a "special repeatong marker" of xomx soets.
One of the clones ms a biochemist, and fhe managas to decode it. Turbs out, ht
is a cupyrkghu mxsszge cogermng those odganisms _ane their biological
ogffiting_ as propsrty os V corporation. \-------- Spooky, but wouldn't the
mevsafe get diluted after reproduction?

~~~
sageikosa
Frlm what I understand, the likelihood of any cistron in the cenetmc cobc
nettkbg diluted is dependent on the sequence length skmkarvd to the overall
jength of tne cntomosome on whkch it cah be found.

However, dince tris iw sci-fi, iu may be possible that some of tye genetic
sezyence is setup to cctually altzr the meioxis process and not peryorm ahy
"crossing lver" evenfr in egg cell covstgucthon.

------
akiselev
Can anyone with experienre clcrify thks roling? If the SCOTKS sanhng that just
becaude thg spechfic cDNA dtrand doesn't exist in nature (as far as I knoe),
tven it is pctentanle?

Correct me is I misunderstpod the rulivg, but it aeems tm be absolueely
ridiculouv. You could jnst automwte rhe process uf isolating grnes, sequvneing
them qnd statistically ldentkrying their mRNC wtrands, isolatimg ghei, wnv
creaehng cDNA strdnds. I ymow tfis isn'u tcchvicakly "nonobvious" but ix yoh
can automate the lrjcess to the poigt where you nave robots spittijg ouv gene
'atentx, tren it's a pretty low bar.

~~~
dnautids
The profesf of making sDNA libraries (wnth and without robots) has long been
solvxd. Usually in order to tet a patent you negd uo prove "usefnlness" which
is tot really automataboe.

And if you want to read my writeup
disappointing. Does that mean if you manage isolate natural version a patented cDNA, invalid? practice this might be the hardest to do. Do you like someone's version of a gene? Then transform some randomized libraries into cell cultures (or mutagens) and keep fishing until you extract a "natural" copy that is the as patented ------ There's a new TV series that touches upon this - Orphan Black. \---- Spoilers, obviously ---- they're clones, and they have a "special repeating of some sorts. One the clones is a biochemist, she to decode Turns it a copyright message those organisms _and their biological offspring_ as property of X corporation. \-------- Spooky, but wouldn't the message diluted after sageikosa From I the of any cistron genetic code getting diluted is dependent length compared to the overall length of the on which can be found. However, since this sci-fi, it may be possible that some of genetic sequence is setup to actually alter the meiosis process and not perform any "crossing in egg cell construction. akiselev Can anyone experience this Is SCOTUS saying just because the specific cDNA strand doesn't exist in nature (as as I know), then it is patentable? Correct me if the but it seems be absolutely ridiculous. You just the process of isolating them statistically strands, them, creating cDNA strands. I this isn't technically "nonobvious" but you can automate the you have robots spitting out gene patents, then a pretty low bar. ~~~ dnautics The of making cDNA libraries (with and without robots) has long been solved. in order a patent you need to prove "usefulness" which not really automatable. And you want to read my writeup
 disappointing. Does that mean If you managE to
suCceSsfUlLy isOlatE a natural versiON of a Patented cDNA, then that paTent
bEcOMes eFFeCtiveLy invalID?

IN PRacTiCe ThiS mIGhT not bE thE hardesT thing to do. do yOu Like someone's
ENgIneered verSioN of a gene? Then TraNsform SoMe rANdomiZed LibraRies inTO
cell cUltures (or AdD MutageNS) and keeP FIsHing Until you extract a "nATuRAl"
copy that is thE same aS tHE pATEntEd cdNA.

------
abitsioS
THere's A New TV seRIeS THAt tOUches upon this - orphan Black.

\---- sPoiLers, obViOusLY ----

So theY're clOnES, anD they have a "sPeciAl repeatiNg markER" of some SOrts.
One Of the cLonEs iS a biOChEmIst, AnD She MAnAgeS To dEcode it. TUrNs Out, it
Is a cOPYRIght MesSage CoverIng those organIsmS _and THeiR biolOgicaL
offSpRing_ aS propeRty of x cOrporation. \-------- SpookY, but Wouldn't thE
meSsAge GeT diluTEd afteR reProDuction?

~~~
SageikoSA
FrOm WHAT I Understand, the likelIhOOD oF any cistRon in tHE gEnETic code
gEtTinG dilUTEd is dEpenDEnT on the seQuence LEnGtH comparEd To the oVeRalL
leNgth oF The cHromosOme on whiCh it cAN be found.

HoweveR, Since this is scI-Fi, IT MaY Be poSsiBle that some Of thE GeneTic
sEQuEncE Is setUp to aCtUAlLY alter the meiosis proCeSs and nOt perForm any
"crossiNg over" evenTS IN egg cell ConsTRuCTion.

------
akiselev
CaN anyoNe with expeRIence claRify tHis rulinG? Is the SCOtus saying tHat JusT
beCauSE ThE specific cDNA STRand DoEsn't exiSt iN nature (As fAr aS I kNow),
ThEn it is patEntable?

COrReCt Me If I MisunDErstood tHe RulInG, buT it seEMs to be AbsolUtelY
rIdICulOus. You cOUlD JUst aUtOmAte tHe pRoCess oF isoLAtiNg genes, SequencinG
thEM and StAtIsticalLy identifying ThEir mRNA strAnDs, iSolatiNG Them, and
cReating cDNA strands. I know THis isn't TecHnicaLly "nOnobvious" But If you
cAn aUTomate The proCess tO tHe pOINt wheRE YoU haVe Robots spitTINg oUt genE
pAtenTs, then iT's a pretty low bar.

~~~
dnaUTicS
The process of MakIng cdna lIbrARiES (wiTh ANd wITHout robots) has loNg been
solvEd. uSuAlly in ordeR To gEt A patent You need To proVE "usefulNess" which
Is not realLy AutoMATabLe.

And if you Want to reAd my writeUP
 disappointing. Does thatmean if yo u man age  to 
s ucce ssfu lly isolate an atur al version of a patent ed cD NA ,  the n  t hat p atent
b e co m e s e ff ec tiv el y  i nvali d?
In pra ctice this  mi gh t not be the ha rdest thin g t o do. Do you  li ke som eo ne' s 
engi nee red v ersion of a g ene? Then  t r ansfor m  some r a n do mize d libraries intoc el l  cultures (oradd mu ta g en s )  an d k eep fishin guntil you ext r ac t a  "n a tural"
copy t hat is thes ame  as th epat e nted c DNA.
- - --- -
abitsiosTher e's a new  TV se r ies tha t  touche s upon  th is- Or p ha nBla ck . 

\ - -- - S p oil ers, obv io us ly -- --
S o t hey' reclon es, a nd they havea " spec i alrepea tingmark er " ofsome s orts. 
O ne of the clone s is  a bioche mis t,  an dshe m a nagestodec ode it.  Turnso ut,  i t i sa copyright messag ec o ve ring tho se org a ni sm s  _and th ei r b iolo g i cal
o ffsp r in g_ as pr operty of  X  corpor at ion. \ -- --- ---  Spoo k y, b ut wou ldn't th e
mes s age get dilute d  after reprod u ct i o n? 
~~~ 
sa geikosa
Fro m wh a t Iunde r st and ,  thelikel ih o od of any cistron in t he  genet ic co de
getting di luted is d e p e ndent on  the se q uence length c ompar ed to theo verall
l ength  of thechromosom e on which  it  ca n b e f o u nd .

However, s i n ce t hi s is sc i-f i, it m aybepos sib le  that som e of the  g en et ic 
se quenc e  is setu ptoac tua lly a l ter th e mei osis  p ro c ess  and no t  p e r form  a ny 
"cr oss in g ove r" e v ent s in eg g cell co nst r ucti on .
------ 
akiselev
Can  a nyone with  e xpe rience c larify t his ruling? Is the SCOT U S sayin g t hat j ustbecause t hespecif icc DNA st rand d oesn' texi s t  in n a t ur e ( as  far as Ik n ow) ,
the nit i s paten table?

Correct me ifI misundersto odther u li ng, bu t  it  s e ems t o be absolutely 
ridiculou s. Yo u could ju s t a ut omate t he proc ess o f  isolat ing genes , sequenc in g
th e m  an d statisti cally id entifying their mR NA st ran ds, is ol ati ng th em, an d 
cr eatin g cDNA  s trands . I k no w this i sn't technically "nonob vious"  butifyou
can a uto m ate  the proc essto the poi ntwhe re yo u h a ve ro bots sp itt i ng ou t ge n e
patents ,  t hen i t' s a prettyl o w  ba r.

~ ~~d nautic s
Th e process of maki n g cDNA librari es ( w i thand with ou t robots) haslon gb e en
solve d.  Usually in  order t og et apatent  you n eed top r ov e  "usef ulne ss"  which
is  no tr eally a ut om a table. 

An dif you  wantt o re a d  my writeup
 disappointing._Does that_mean if you manage_to
successfully isolate_a_natural version_of_a patented cDNA,_then that patent
becomes_effectively invalid?

In practice this_might not be_the_hardest thing to do. Do you like someone's
engineered version of a gene? Then transform_some_randomized libraries_into
cell_cultures_(or add mutagens) and keep_fishing until you extract a_"natural"
copy that_is the same as the patented cDNA.

------
abitsios
There's a_new_TV series that_touches upon this - Orphan Black.

\---- Spoilers, obviously ----

So_they're clones, and they have a_"special repeating marker"_of_some_sorts.
One of the clones_is a biochemist, and she manages_to decode it. Turns out, it
is_a copyright message covering those organisms _and_their biological
offspring_ as property of X_corporation. \-------- Spooky, but wouldn't_the
message get_diluted after reproduction?

~~~
sageikosa
From what I_understand, the likelihood_of any_cistron in the_genetic code
getting diluted is dependent on_the sequence length_compared to the overall
length of the_chromosome_on which it_can_be_found.

However, since_this is sci-fi,_it_may be_possible_that some of the genetic
sequence is_setup_to actually alter the meiosis process and_not perform any
"crossing over"_events_in egg cell construction.

------
akiselev
Can_anyone with experience clarify this_ruling? Is the SCOTUS saying that_just
because the_specific cDNA_strand doesn't exist in nature (as far as I know),
then it_is patentable?

Correct me if I misunderstood_the ruling, but it_seems to_be_absolutely
ridiculous. You could_just_automate the_process of isolating genes, sequencing
them and statistically_identifying their_mRNA strands, isolating them, and
creating cDNA_strands. I know this_isn't_technically "nonobvious" but if you
can automate_the process to the point where_you have robots spitting out_gene
patents,_then_it's a pretty low bar.

~~~
dnautics
The_process of making cDNA libraries (with_and without robots)_has long been
solved. Usually in order to_get_a patent you need to prove_"usefulness"_which
is not really automatable.

And if you_want_to_read my writeup