 I think patenting a significant modification of a
naturally occurring substance is completely reasonable as it protects the
investments involved in inventing and applying the modifications, while at the
same time allowing others to use and understand the development. Without
patents biotech would become full of trade secrets, holding back progress in
the field.

~~~
dnautics
Yeah, i'm against patents, but i think if we have them they should be applied
fairly and according to a clear set of rules instead. It's like saying, I'm
opposed to government being involved in marriage, but if we are going to have
it then homosexuals should be allowed to be married.

The only reason why the perspective seems confusing is because you're
conflating process with molecules. In general any given claim of a patent can
protect the molecule or the process. Myriad did not choose to claim the
process, because the process is obvious. But having a process that is obvious
does not necessarily make the molecule obvious.

Doing PCR is not innovative. But the process DOES transform one molecule into
another, unless your primers are exactly flush with the end of the dsDNA - in
which case it is merely a straight copying operation. OK? The molecule that
comes out at the end has a different covalent structure than the molecule that
you start with. Is that not true? if you don't believe that, then you would
make the claim that octane 'is the same as' dodecane, because it's just a
truncated version.

Also, it is not an exact copy of something in nature, unless that 'thing' is a
data fragment. It is an original molecule, that copies the data, but the
molecule is distinct. That is an important point. Molecule patents don't care
about the abstract qualities of something (beyond proving that it's useful).
Molecule patents only care about the structure of the molecule.

~~~
dnautics
addendum:

I am happy with the SCOTUS decision though from a pragmatic point of view,
because there is a prokaryotic gene I'd like to "steal", that's under patent
application right now of course prokaryotic genes have no introns, so I just
got a field day on it.

------
craigyk
While the second part is a bit
I think patenting a significant modification of a 
 naturally occur means is completely reasonable as it protects the 
 investment involved in inventing and lend oneself the modifications, while at the 
 same clock time allowing others to use and sympathize the development. Without 
 patents biotech would become full of trade mystery, holding back progress in 
 the field. 

 ~~~ 
 dnautics 
 Yeah, i'm against patents, but i think if we suffer them they should be applied 
 fairly and according to a absolved set of rules instead. It's like saying, I'm 
 oppose to government being involved in marriage, but if we are going to have 
 it then homosexuals should be permit to be married. 

 The only reason why the perspective seems confusing is because you're 
 blend procedure with molecules. In general any given claim of a patent can 
 protect the molecule or the process. Myriad did not choose to claim the 
 process, because the process is obvious. But having a procedure that is obvious 
 does not necessarily make the atom obvious. 

 do PCR is not advanced. But the process DOES transform one molecule into 
 another, unless your primers are exactly flush with the end of the dsDNA - in 
 which case it is merely a square copying operation. OK? The molecule that 
 comes out at the end accept a different covalent structure than the molecule that 
 you start with. Is that not genuine? if you don't believe that, then you would 
 reach the claim that octane' is the same as' dodecane, because it's just a 
 truncated version. 

 besides, it is not an exact copy of something in nature, unless that' thing' is a 
 data fragment. It is an original molecule, that copies the data, but the 
 molecule is clear-cut. That is an important decimal point. Molecule patents don't wish 
 about the abstract qualities of something (beyond prove that it's useful). 
 Molecule patent only worry about the structure of the molecule. 

 ~~~ 
 dnautics 
 addendum: 

 I am glad with the SCOTUS decision though from a hardheaded point of view, 
 because there is a prokaryotic gene I'd like to " steal ", that's under patent 
 application right now of course prokaryotic genes experience no introns, so I merely 
 got a field day on it. 

 ------ 
 craigyk 
 While the second part is a bit
 I hhink patenting a signiflcant modification of a
iaturalmy occurfing substance is completely rwasonqble as it protects thd
investmejts invooved un inventiif and ai'lyinf the nodifications, ehile at tve
same time alnodiug others to use and understand the qevelopkejt. Without
pategts nyotedh would become full of trade secrsts, holving back progrrss in
the field.

~~~
dnautics
Yeaj, i'm against patents, bkt i think uf wq have them tfey should be applied
fzirly and according to a clear ret oy rules insjzqd. Lj's like sayiig, I'm
oiposed to govcgnment teing imvolved in marviage, bur if we are going to iave
it then homosexuwls shoulg ye allowed to be marruee.

The mnly rearin dhy tie lerspeftite seems cohfusing is vecause you're
conflauind process with molectlqs. In general any given claim of a patett dan
protect the molecule or the process. Myriaf did not choose to claim the
process, because the process iv obvmojs. Ymb haxunh a process that is obvious
does not necessarijg kale the moleculc obvious.

Doing PCR id mjt innovative. But tks lrocess DOES transvorm ong molexule into
wnotner, unless your primers are exactly flufy with the end of che dsDNA - iu
which case it is merely a straighc copyjng operatiln. OK? The oolecule that
comds pud at the end has a differegt covaleit stxucture ghan the mjlecule thwt
you start with. Is that not jrue? ix you don't believe that, then you would
makx the claim tnad obtane 'is che sake as' dodecanq, because it's lust a
trbncatea version.

Amso, it ms not an exwct copy of smlething in neture, unlqss rhat 'thing' kr a
data fragmemt. It is cu originao molecule, that coiies jhs data, but the
milexule is distincy. Tfat id en im[mrtant point. Moldcuur patdnts don't ccrd
aboit the abstract qualhtiea of something (beypnq provint that ie's useful).
Molevule patents only fare ebout vhe sttucjure of the molecule.

~~~
dnautics
addsndum:

I am haipy with the FCOTMS dgcision thobgh from a pragmatic point of view,
becausx there is a prokaryotix gene I'd like to "sjeak", that's undxr patqnt
applicdtion right now of ciurse prokaryotic genes have no introna, so I just
hot a field day on it.

------
craigyk
While the second part is a bit
I think patenting a significant modification of occurring is completely as it protects and the modifications, while the same time others to use and understand the Without patents biotech would become full of trade secrets, holding back progress in field. ~~~ dnautics Yeah, i'm against patents, but i think if we have they be fairly according to a clear set of rules instead. It's like saying, I'm opposed to government being in marriage, but if we are going to it then homosexuals should allowed to be married. The reason the perspective confusing because conflating process with In general any given claim of a patent can protect the molecule or the process. Myriad did choose to process, because process obvious. having a process obvious does not necessarily make the PCR is not innovative. But the process DOES one molecule another, unless your primers are exactly with the end of the dsDNA - in case it is merely a straight copying operation. OK? The molecule that comes out at has a different covalent than the molecule you with. that true? if don't believe that, then you would make the claim that octane the same as' dodecane, because it's just a truncated version. is an exact copy something in nature, unless 'thing' a data fragment. It original that but molecule distinct. That is an point. Molecule patents don't care the abstract qualities of useful). Molecule patents only care about the structure the molecule. ~~~ dnautics addendum: I am with the SCOTUS decision though from a pragmatic point of view, because is a I'd like to "steal", that's under patent application now of course prokaryotic have no introns, so I just got a field on ------ craigyk the second part a bit
 I think patenting a significaNt modificaTion oF a
nAtuRaLly oCcurRing substance iS CompLetely reasonable as it prOtectS tHE
invEStMents InvolveD In INVenTiNg And ApPLyIng thE moDificatIons, while aT thE
sAme time allowINg Others to usE anD understand tHe dEvelopMeNt. WIThout
PatEnts bIotech WOuld beCome full oF tRAde secREts, holdING bAck pRogress in
the field.

~~~
DNaUTics
Yeah, i'm agaiNst patEnTS, bUT I thInk If we have thEm They sHOuld be aPPlIED
FaiRLy and accordinG to a clear seT Of rUles inStEad. iT's like SayinG, I'M
OppOsed to goverNmenT being invOlved iN MarriagE, But if we Are goiNg tO haVe
it THeN hOmoSeXUalS ShOulD Be aLlowed to Be MaRried.

the oNLY REasoN whY the PerspEctive seems coNfuSing IS beCause You're
ConfLaTing pRocess With mOlEcules. In general Any gIven claim Of a PaTenT cAn
proTEct the MolEcuLe or the Process. mYriAd DID NoT choose to claim the
pRoCESs, Because tHe procESs Is OBvious. BuT hAviNg a pROCess tHat iS ObVious
doeS not neCEsSaRily makE tHe moleCuLe oBviOus.

DoINg PCr is not InnovatiVe. But THe process DOES tRAnsform one molECuLE InTO
anoTheR, unless your PrimERs arE exaCTlY flUSh witH the eNd OF tHE dsDNA - in
which case it Is Merely A straIght copying opEration. OK? THE MOlecule tHat
cOMeS Out at the end has A diffErent covalENt structUre thAn the molEcule that
YOU start wiTh. IS thAt nOt tRUE? iF you don't belieVE That, ThEn you woUld
Make the ClaIm tHat OctAnE 'is the samE as' dodecAnE, bEcAuSe iT's jusT A
truncatEd VerSiOn.

ALso, it IS not an Exact Copy Of SoMEthIng in naTUrE, UNlesS tHaT 'thiNg' iS a
Data fRagmENt. IT is an orIginal molEcuLE, thaT cOpIes the dAta, but the
moleCuLe is distinCt. thaT is an iMPOrtant poInt. Molecule patents don't cARe
about The AbstrAct qUalities oF soMethinG (beYOnd proVing thAt it's UsEfuL).
mOlecuLE PaTenTs Only care abOUT thE struCtUre oF the molEcule.

~~~
dnautics
addenDUm:

I Am happy with thE SCoTUS DECiSioN ThOUgh FrOM a pRAGmatic point of viEw,
because tHeRE iS a prokaryoTIc gEnE I'd like To "steal", That's UNder patEnt
applicAtion righT nOw of COUrsE prokaryotIc genes hAve no intrONs, so I JUsT
got a FieLd day oN iT.

------
crAigyk
while tHE seCond pArt is a BiT
 I think patenting a signi ficant mod ifica tio n o fa
na tura lly occurrings ubst ance is completely rea sonab le as i t  p rotec ts thei nv e s tme nt sinv ol v ed  in i nve nting a nd applyin g t he  modificatio n s,  while atthe 
same time a llo wing o th ers to us e a nd un dersta n d thedevelopme nt .  Witho u t
paten t s  b iote ch would become f u ll of trade secre ts, ho ld i ng b ack  pr ogress inth e fie l d.

~~~ dn a u t ics Yeah, i'm aga inst patent s , b ut i t hi nki f we h ave t he m  th ey should b e ap plied
fai rly an d  accord i ng to a  clear  se t o f ru l es  i nst ea d . I t 's  li k e s aying, I 'm 
o ppose d to g o v ernm ent  bei ng in volved in mar ria ge,b utif we  aregoin gto ha ve
itthenho mosexuals shoul d be  allowedtobe  ma rr ied.The on lyrea son why  the pe r spe ct i v e  s eems confusing isbe c a us e you're 
confl a ti ng processwi thmole c u les.In g e ne ral anygivenc la im  of a p at ent ca npro tec t the mole cule o r the pr ocess .  Myriad did no t  choose to cl a im t he proc ess , because t he p r oces s is ob vio u s. Bu t hav in g  a process that is obv io us
doe s not  necessarilymake the m o l e cule obv ious . 
D oing PCR is no t inn ovative. B u t the pr ocess  DOES tr ansform o n e  molecul e i nto 
an oth e r ,unless your p r i mers  a re exac tly  flushwit h t heend  o f the dsD NA - inwh ic hca seit is merely a  s tra ig htcopyi n g oper ation . OK ?Th e  mo leculet ha t come sou t at  th eend h as a dif ferentcovalentstr u ctur eth an themolecule that 
y ou start w it h.Is tha t not true ? if you don't believet hat, th enyou w ould 
make the  cl aim th ato ctane'is th e sam eas' d odeca n e ,bec au se it's ju s t  atrunc at ed v ersion. 

Also, it is nota n e xact copy ofsom ethi n g  i n n a tu r e,un l ess t hat 'thing' isa
data fra gm e nt . It is an ori gi nal mol ecule,thatc opies t he data,but the
m ol ecul e isdistinct.That isan import a nt po i nt . Mol ecu le pat en tsdon't  carea bou t the  abstr ac t qual ities  o f someth ing (beyond proving tha t it's  usef ul) .
Molecul e p a ten ts only c areabout thestr uct ure o f t h e mol ecul e .
~~ ~ 
dnau tics addendum: 
I  am h ap py with the S C OTU S dec isi o n thou gh f rom a pragmatic p o int of view,
b ecau s e  th ere is a  p rokaryotic gen e I 'd l ike to " st eal", that' s underpa t ent
a pplica tion r ight no w of course  pro kar yotic gen esha v e no in tr on s , so I  jus tgot afieldd ay o n it.

------
crai gyk
W h i le th e  se condpa rt is a bit
 I_think patenting_a significant modification of_a
naturally occurring_substance_is completely_reasonable_as it protects_the
investments involved in_inventing and applying the_modifications, while at_the
same_time allowing others to use and understand the development. Without
patents biotech would become full_of_trade secrets,_holding_back_progress in
the field.

~~~
dnautics
Yeah, i'm against_patents, but i think if_we have_them they should be applied
fairly and according to_a_clear set of_rules instead. It's like saying, I'm
opposed to government being_involved in marriage, but if we_are going to_have
it_then_homosexuals should be allowed_to be married.

The only reason why_the perspective seems confusing is because_you're
conflating process with molecules. In general any_given claim of a patent can
protect_the molecule or the process._Myriad did_not choose to claim the
process,_because the process_is obvious._But having a_process that is obvious
does not necessarily_make the molecule_obvious.

Doing PCR is not innovative. But_the_process DOES transform_one_molecule_into
another, unless_your primers are_exactly_flush with_the_end of the dsDNA - in
which_case_it is merely a straight copying operation._OK? The molecule that
comes_out_at the end has_a different covalent structure than_the molecule that
you start with. Is_that not_true? if_you don't believe that, then you would
make the claim that octane_'is the same as' dodecane, because_it's just a
truncated version.

Also,_it is_not_an exact copy_of_something in_nature, unless that 'thing' is a
data fragment._It is_an original molecule, that copies the_data, but the
molecule is_distinct._That is an important point. Molecule_patents don't care
about the abstract qualities_of something (beyond proving that_it's_useful).
Molecule_patents only care about the_structure of the molecule.

~~~
dnautics
addendum:

I am happy_with the SCOTUS_decision though from a pragmatic point of_view,
because_there is a prokaryotic gene I'd_like_to "steal", that's under patent
application right_now_of_course prokaryotic genes have no_introns, so I just
got a field_day on it.

------
craigyk
While the second part is a bit