 because the dsDNA molecule exists in
nature. I think in this context isolation is similar in nature to discovery,
which is not a patentable activity.

~~~
dnautics
well, no, the supreme court has decided that effectively breaking four
covalent bonds is not transformative (your words). I think it's a wrong
decision. Even so, if you actually understand it, the act of PCR is an act of
creation, not transformation. That dsDNA molecule doesn't exist in nature.

For example, there is a molecule thiostrepton which is an antibiotic compound,
that's really quite poor. They have recently discovered that only the core of
the molecule is necessary for antibiosis, and removal of the rest of the
molecule improves its pharmacological properties. It's a distinct molecule,
created by the scission of 3 covalent bonds. Should it be unpatentable? Almost
certainly, somewhere in nature, there has a thiostrepton molecule that by
accident happened to have been cleaved at exactly the right places to render
the molecule. does that change your opinion?

I am not trying to defend the practice - I abhor patents - but a lot of people
are letting their emotional reaction to "patenting genes" get in the way of a
dispassionate and informed analysis of what actually is going on here.

~~~
daughart
Your perspective is confusing. You say that a modified form of thiostrepton
should not be patentable, even though the patent protects the molecule as well
as the process of chemical synthesis or purification, which often requires
significant innovation, and in this case the natural molecule is also
significantly modified. On the other hand, when you PCR something you are
generating a dsDNA molecule that is identical to the original molecule. I
understand PCR quite well, and doing PCR is not innovative or transformative.
You are creating something, sure, but it's an exact copy of something that
exists in nature. The Supreme Court clearly states here that merely finding
out where a genetic sequence is and isolating it is not patentable. The
process of PCR itself is an invention, and is patented (Cetus, Mullis).

It seems preposterous to say that you are strongly against patents, and then
say you think the patent should be much more restrictive. I have no emotional
reaction to patenting genes.
because the dsDNA molecule exists in 
 nature. I think in this context isolation is similar in nature to discovery, 
 which is not a patentable natural process. 

 ~~~ 
 dnautics 
 well, no, the supreme court has decide that effectively breaking four 
 covalent bonds is not transformative (your quarrel). I think it's a wrong 
 decisiveness. Even so, if you actually understand it, the act of PCR is an act of 
 creation, not transformation. That dsDNA atom doesn't exist in nature. 

 For case, there is a atom thiostrepton which is an antibiotic compound, 
 that's really quite poor. They have recently discovered that only the effect of 
 the molecule is necessary for antibiosis, and removal of the rest of the 
 molecule improves its pharmacological properties. It's a discrete molecule, 
 created by the scission of 3 covalent bonds. Should it be unpatentable? about 
 certainly, somewhere in nature, there has a thiostrepton atom that by 
 accident happened to have been cleave at exactly the correct places to render 
 the molecule. does that transfer your opinion? 

 I am not trying to defend the practice - I abhor patents - but a lot of people 
 are letting their emotional reaction to " patenting genes " get in the way of a 
 dispassionate and informed analysis of what actually is going on here. 

 ~~~ 
 daughart 
 Your perspective is confusing. You state that a modified form of thiostrepton 
 should not be patentable, even though the patent protect the atom equally well 
 as the process of chemical synthesis or purification, which often requires 
 significant innovation, and in this case the lifelike molecule is also 
 significantly modified. On the other hand, when you PCR something you are 
 generating a dsDNA molecule that is identical to the original molecule. I 
 understand PCR quite well, and doing PCR is not innovative or transformative. 
 You are create something, surely, but it's an accurate transcript of something that 
 exists in nature. The Supreme Court clearly states here that merely finding 
 out where a genetic sequence is and isolating it is not patentable. The 
 process of PCR itself is an invention, and is patent (Cetus, Mullis). 

 It seems preposterous to say that you are strongly against patent, and then 
 say you intend the patent should be much more restrictive. I have no aroused 
 reaction to patenting genes.
 befause the dsDNA molecule exists in
naturg. U thinn in tgis contdxt isolation is similar in iatuee to discovery,
which is not a patentwble actuvitb.

~~~
dnautics
well, no, the supvzme ckmrt hcs decided that gffectively treaking four
cmvxlznt bonds is not transformative (your words). O hhink it's a wrjng
dtcifion. Vvtn so, if you actually understand jt, the ect of PCR is am act of
creation, not transvormwtion. That dsDNA mllecule doewn't qzist in natufe.

For examklz, there is z molecule thiostrepton which ir an cntibiotic xonpoktd,
that's reaoly qlite poor. Then have secentlu discovered tmat oily rhe core of
the molecune is necessary fot antibioshs, and removal of tye rest of dhe
muoecjle ikpdoves lts pharmacolkgical propwrties. It's a distinvt nolecule,
creatsd by ehq scission of 3 covalent bonds. Should it be unpatentable? Almost
cerrainly, somewhere in nwture, thewe has a thiostrepton molecule that by
accident ha[penev go kqve bdwn cleaved at exactly the right places to rendew
fht mplecule. does tmat change your oponlom?

Y am not tryivg to bsfsnd the practice - L abhor patebts - but w loy of people
are letting theie emotional geacrion to "patenting yenes" get in the way pf a
dispassionate and iuformes analysis lf what adgually is going un mera.

~~~
daugharu
Hour perspective ys confusmng. Ypu say ghat a modyfied form of tmhostrepton
should nlt be pdtentable, fven though the patent protects the molecule ss wenl
as the proccss of chemical synthesis or kurificatnon, whkch often gequires
smgnificant ignovation, and ln this case the nattral molwcule ir also
significamtly modiyned. On thw other hand, when nou PZD something you art
gwnerating a dsCNA mojebulx thae is identican to thd origknal molecuod. I
umderstand PCR quite fell, and doing PCR is mob innovatuve or twansformative.
Uou are creating slmethmng, suce, but it'f an exact copy of something tgat
exists in nature. The Fuprcme Sourt cleaxly states here that merely finding
out wiere a genetic sequencg is and isolating it ls not patenvable. Ehe
procesv of PCR itself is ab invention, and ix patented (Cetus, Mulljs).

It saems oreposterous to say that you are strongly against patents, and then
say you think the patent ahoukd be mbch more westcirtive. I have no ekotional
reaction to patenting gxnes.
because the dsDNA molecule exists in nature. in context isolation similar in nature a activity. ~~~ dnautics no, the supreme has decided that effectively breaking four bonds is not transformative (your words). I think it's a wrong decision. Even if you actually understand it, the act of PCR is an act of not That molecule exist in nature. For example, there is a molecule thiostrepton which is an antibiotic compound, that's quite poor. They have recently discovered that only core of the molecule necessary for antibiosis, and removal the of the improves pharmacological It's a distinct created by the scission of 3 covalent bonds. Should it be unpatentable? Almost certainly, somewhere in nature, has a that by happened have cleaved at exactly places to render the molecule. does opinion? I am not trying to defend the - I patents - but a lot of are letting their emotional reaction to "patenting genes" in the way of a dispassionate and informed analysis of what actually is going on daughart Your perspective is You say that modified of should be patentable, though the patent protects the molecule as well as the process chemical synthesis or purification, which often requires significant innovation, and case natural molecule is significantly modified. On the hand, you PCR something you a molecule to original I understand PCR quite and doing PCR is not or transformative. You are an exact copy of something that exists in The Supreme Court clearly states here that finding out where a genetic sequence is and isolating it is not The process itself is an invention, and is patented (Cetus, It seems preposterous to that you are strongly against patents, and then say think patent should much more restrictive. have no emotional to patenting genes.
 because the dsDNA molecule exIsts in
natuRe. I thInk In tHiS conText Isolation is simILar iN nature to discovery,
whicH is noT a PAtenTAbLe actIvity.

~~~
dnAUtICS
weLl, No, The SuPReMe couRt hAs decidEd that effeCtiVeLy breaking foUR
cOvalent bonDs iS not transforMatIve (youR wOrdS). i thinK it'S a wroNg
deciSIon. EveN so, if you aCtUAlly unDErstand IT, ThE act Of PCR is an act of
creATiON, not transformaTion. ThAt DSDna MolEcuLe doesn't exIsT in naTUre.

For eXAmPLE, TheRE is a molecule tHiostrepton WHicH is an aNtIbiOTic comPound,
ThAT's rEally quite pOor. THey have reCently DIscoverED that onLy the cOre Of
tHe moLEcUlE is NeCEssARy For ANtiBiosis, anD rEmOval oF the REST Of thE
moLecuLe impRoves its pharmAcoLogiCAl pRoperTies. IT's a dIsTinct MolecuLe,
creAtEd by the scission Of 3 coValent bonDs. SHoUld It Be unpATentabLe? ALmoSt
certaInly, somEWheRe IN NAtUre, there has a thiostRePTOn Molecule That by
ACcIdENt happenEd To hAve bEEN cleaVed aT ExActly the Right pLAcEs To rendeR
tHe moleCuLe. dOes That cHAnge Your opInion?

I am Not trYIng to defend the PRactice - I abhor PAtENTs - BUt a lOt oF people
are lEttiNG theIr emOTiOnaL ReactIon to "PaTEnTIng genes" get in the way Of A
dispaSsionAte and informeD analysis oF WHAt actualLy is GOiNG on here.

~~~
daugharT
Your PerspectivE Is confusIng. YoU say that A modified FORm of thioStrEptOn
sHouLD NoT be patentable, EVEn thOuGh the paTenT protecTs tHe mOleCulE aS well
as thE process Of ChEmIcAl sYntheSIs or puriFiCatIoN, whIch ofTEn requIres
sIgniFiCaNT inNovatioN, AnD IN thiS cAsE the NatUrAl molEculE Is aLso
signIficantly ModIFied. on ThE other hAnd, when you PCR SoMething you ArE
geNeratiNG A dsDNA moLecule that is identical to THe origiNal MolecUle. I
UnderstanD PCr quite WelL, And doiNg PCR iS not iNnOvaTIVe or tRANsForMaTive.
You are CREatIng soMeThinG, sure, buT it's an exact copy of sOMetHing that
existS in NatuRE. thE SuPReME CoUrT CleARLy states here thaT merely finDiNG
oUt where a geNEtiC sEquence Is and isOlatiNG it is noT patentabLe. The
procEsS of Pcr ItsElf is an invEntion, anD is patentED (CetuS, muLlis).

IT seEms prePoSteRous tO say thAT yoU are sTronglY aGainst PatenTs, And then
sAy you think the patent shouLd be muCh morE reStrictive. i haVE no Emotional
ReacTion to pateNtiNg gEnes.
 because the dsDNA molecul e exists i n
nat ure . I  t hink  inthis context i s olat ion is similar in natu re to  d i scov e ry ,
whi ch is n o ta pat en ta ble  a c ti vity. 

~ ~~
dnau tics
well,  no ,the supremec ou rt has dec ide d that effec tiv ely br ea kin g  four 
co valen t bond s  is no t transfo rm a tive ( y our wor d s ).  I t hink it's a wrong de c ision. Even so , if y ou ac t u all y u nderstandit , the act ofP CR i s  an act of
creati on, not tra n sfo rmatio n.  Th a t dsDN A mol ec u ledoesn't exi st i n nature. 

Fore xample, there i s a mo lec ule  thi o st re pto nw hic h  i s a n  an tibiotic  c om pound ,
th a t ' s  rea lly  qui te po or. They have  re cent l y d iscov eredthat  o nly t he cor e ofth e molecule is n eces sary forant ib ios is , and remova l o f t he rest  of the mol ec u l e  i mproves its pharma co l o gi cal prop erties .  I t' s  a disti nc t m olec u l e,
cr eate d  b y the sc ission of  3  covale nt  bonds .Sho uld  it b e  unp atenta ble? Alm ost
c e rtainly, somew h ere in nature ,  t h e re hasa t hiostrepton  mol e cule  tha t  b y
a c ciden t hap pe n ed to have been cleave dat exa ctlythe right pla ces to ren d e r 
the mol ecul e .d oes that chang e you r opinion? 
I am no t try ing to d efend the p ractice- I  ab hor  pa t e nt s - but a lot o f pe op le
arelet ting th eir  em oti ona lreactionto "pate nt in gge nes " get in the w ay  of  a 
di spass i onateand i nfor me da nal ysis of wh a t  act ua ll y is  go in g onhere . 

~ ~~
daug hart
Your  pe r spec ti ve  is con fusing. You s ay  that a mo di fie d form o f thiost repton
should not be pa t entable , e ven t houg h the pat ent  prote cts the mo lecule  as w el l
a s the p r o ce ssof  chemicals y nth esisor  pur ificati on, which often re q uir es
significan t i nnov a t io n,a nd inth i s c a s e the natural m olecule is  a l so 
significa n tly  m odified . On th e oth e r hand,  when you  PCR some th ingy o u a re
generat ing a ds DNA molec u le th a tis id ent ical t othe  orig inal m o lec ule.I
unde rs tand P CR qu it e well,and doing PCR is not in novati ve or  tr ansformat ive . 
Yo u are cre atin g somethin g,sur e, bu t i t 's an  exa c tcop y  of s omet h ing thate xi sts i nnature. The S u pre me Co urt clearl y st ates here that me r ely finding
ou t wh e r e a  ge n etic  s equence is and  is ol a t ing it i snot patenta ble. The 
p r ocess  of PC R itse lf is a n in v ention , an d i s patente d ( Ce t us, Mul li s) . 

It s eems  p repost eroust o sa y that you are str ongly a gains t  pa tents ,and the n 
say  you think  the patent  shoul d be  much  more r es tricti ve.  I  have no e m otional
r eacti on to p at enti nggenes. 
 because_the dsDNA_molecule exists in
nature. I_think in_this_context isolation_is_similar in nature_to discovery,
which is_not a patentable activity.

~~~
dnautics
well,_no, the supreme_court_has decided that effectively breaking four
covalent bonds is not transformative (your words). I think_it's_a wrong
decision._Even_so,_if you actually understand it,_the act of PCR is_an act_of
creation, not transformation. That dsDNA molecule doesn't exist_in_nature.

For example, there_is a molecule thiostrepton which is an antibiotic compound,
that's_really quite poor. They have recently_discovered that only_the_core_of
the molecule is necessary_for antibiosis, and removal of the_rest of the
molecule improves its pharmacological_properties. It's a distinct molecule,
created by the_scission of 3 covalent bonds. Should_it be unpatentable? Almost
certainly, somewhere_in nature,_there has a thiostrepton molecule_that by
accident happened_to have_been cleaved at_exactly the right places to render
the_molecule. does that_change your opinion?

I am not trying_to_defend the practice_-_I_abhor patents_- but a_lot_of people
are_letting_their emotional reaction to "patenting genes"_get_in the way of a
dispassionate and informed_analysis of what actually_is_going on here.

~~~
daughart
Your perspective_is confusing. You say that_a modified form of thiostrepton
should not_be patentable,_even though_the patent protects the molecule as well
as the process of chemical_synthesis or purification, which often requires
significant_innovation, and in this_case the_natural_molecule is also
significantly_modified._On the_other hand, when you PCR something you_are
generating a_dsDNA molecule that is identical to_the original molecule. I
understand_PCR_quite well, and doing PCR is_not innovative or transformative.
You are creating_something, sure, but it's an_exact_copy_of something that
exists in nature._The Supreme Court clearly states here_that merely finding
out_where a genetic sequence is and isolating_it_is not patentable. The
process of PCR_itself_is an invention, and is patented_(Cetus,_Mullis).

It_seems preposterous to say that_you are strongly against patents, and_then
say you think the patent should be much more_restrictive. I have_no emotional
reaction to patenting genes.