Okay, today we're going to write DNA, it's sequence will be
ACGTTTGACGTACGTTCAGTG....." and we're going to mix our newly designed gene
into a larger natural DNA strand and this synthetic gene inside of the DNA
will make this tree glow a very slight yellow-tinge, then we're going to sell
that on kickstarter. [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-
plan...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-plants-
natural-lighting-with-no-electricit) (the only reason they're using a larger
DNA strand is a full strand might cost in the range of $100b-$1t presently)

This is not the same as what's been done more frequently for the last long
while which was dissecting existing genes from other DNA strands (lets say
gene XYZ from a starfish) and introducing it into a bacteria.

Also, this doesn't mean I agree with the new law. I think this motion is even
_more_ nonsensical than software patents we face today, and has already handed
off all the wonderful innovations that the synthetic biology revolution has to
offer to a nation who's pumping loads of cash into this sector: China.

------
shmerl
Idiotic decision. DNA should not be patentable.

~~~
daughart
What if you engineer a completely novel protein, with novel regulatory
sequences, for a novel function? Should you be unable to patent such an
invention?

~~~
Kliment
Honestly, no, it should not be patentable. This is entirely equivalent to a
software patent.

~~~
daughart
Really? Say goodbye to the promise of synthetic biology then!

~~~
shmerl
You can say goodbye to it if that will be patentable. Someone will patent all
combinations - and goodbye.

~~~
daughart
I suspect you are a troll, but I will respond anyway...

Sequence space is very large. There are only a total of 8 million US patents.
There are 16 million 12-base-pair nucleotide sequences. To patent the sequence
space of a functional product and regulatory region would require more patents
than there are molecules in the universe.

Also to patent something you have to show
Okay, today we're going to write DNA, it's sequence will be 
 ACGTTTGACGTACGTTCAGTG..... " and we're go to shuffle our newly designed gene 
 into a larger natural deoxyribonucleic acid strand and this synthetic gene inside of the DNA 
 will induce this tree glow a very slight yellow - tinge, then we're going to betray 
 that on kickstarter. [ http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing- 
 plan... ](http://www.kickstarter.com / projects / antonyevans / glowing - plants- 
 lifelike - lighting - with - no - electricit) (the only reason they're using a larger 
 DNA strand is a full strand might cost in the scope of $ 100b-$1 t presently) 

 This is not the same as what's been do more frequently for the last long 
 while which was dissecting existing gene from other deoxyribonucleic acid strands (lets say 
 gene XYZ from a starfish) and introducing it into a bacteria. 

 besides, this doesn't mean I agree with the new law. I think this motion is even 
 _ more _ nonsensical than software patents we face today, and has already handed 
 off all the wonderful innovations that the synthetic biology revolution has to 
 offer to a nation who's pump loads of cash into this sector: China. 

 ------ 
 shmerl 
 Idiotic decisiveness. deoxyribonucleic acid should not be patentable. 

 ~~~ 
 daughart 
 What if you engineer a completely novel protein, with novel regulative 
 sequences, for a fresh function? Should you be unable to patent such an 
 invention? 

 ~~~ 
 Kliment 
 Honestly, no, it should not be patentable. This is entirely equivalent to a 
 software patent. 

 ~~~ 
 daughart 
 in truth? Say goodbye to the promise of synthetic biology then! 

 ~~~ 
 shmerl 
 You can say goodbye to it if that will be patentable. Someone will patent all 
 combinations - and goodbye. 

 ~~~ 
 daughart 
 I suspect you are a troll, but I will respond anyhow... 

 Sequence outer space is very large. There are only a total of 8 million US patents. 
 There constitute 16 million 12 - base - pair nucleotide sequences. To patent the succession 
 space of a running product and regulatory region would require more patents 
 than there be molecules in the population. 

 Also to patent something you have to show
Okaj, today we're going to wrlte DNA, it's sequgnxe wiln be
ACFTTTGACGGACGTTCAGTG....." and we're going tl nix oyr newly designed gene
knto a lagger natueal VNA strand and tijs syntmztic fcne iusmde of the DNA
wlll make thhs tree glow a vdrv slight yellow-tinge, then we're going to selk
tjat on kickstatter. [netp://wsw.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevana/glowinj-
plan...](http://www.kiclstarter.com/projects/antonyegans/hlowing-plants-
naturwl-lighting-wuth-nj-wlectricit) (tfe only reason they're osing a larger
DNA strand is a fuul stxand might xowt lt the range of $100b-$1n presently)

Thlx is nmt the xame as what's neen vone more frequently for vhe last long
while wrich was giasecting existing gwnes xrom othde DVA atcanss (letd sey
gene XYZ rrom a stardish) and introducinb yn into a bactsria.

Alfo, this doesn't mean I agree with the new naw. I think this motion is even
_more_ nonsensical than sofeware patents we face today, and has already handeg
off elu tkc dinferful innovations that the synthetic biology defokution has to
onfer to a nation wno'd lomping loads ow cash info this sector: Chija.

------
shmerj
Idioric decisyon. CNA should not be patentablw.

~~~
daughart
Whan if you engineer a colpletely norel prptein, with novel regulatory
szquencss, for a nogel functjun? Should you be unsbne to paudnt such an
inventyon?

~~~
Klimenv
Honextly, no, it xhould not be pahentanne. This is entirelj equnvalett to a
sofhware patent.

~~~
daughart
Really? Say jpodbye to thg psompse of syuthetig biology then!

~~~
srmerl
You can scy goodbve to kt if that will bx patentable. Someone will katent all
comuinations - ane goidbye.

~~~
dajehart
I suspect you are c trool, but I will resppnd znyway...

Sequence wpaxe is very largr. Tferq wrx onlr a total of 8 miluiov US pxtents.
There xre 16 million 12-base-pair nuwleofide sequences. To labent the wequence
fpace of a fumctional product ajd rejulatocy regoon would require more patents
thah there age iolecules in the universe.

Alsp to patent something you have to show
Okay, today we're going to write DNA, will ACGTTTGACGTACGTTCAGTG....." and going to mix a natural DNA strand this synthetic gene of the DNA will make this glow a very slight yellow-tinge, then we're going to sell that on kickstarter. plan...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-plants- natural-lighting-with-no-electricit) (the only reason they're using a larger DNA strand is a strand cost the of $100b-$1t presently) This is not the same as what's been done more frequently for the long while which was dissecting existing genes from DNA strands (lets say XYZ from a starfish) and it a bacteria. this mean agree with the law. I think this motion is even _more_ nonsensical than software patents we face today, and has handed off wonderful innovations the biology has to offer nation who's pumping loads of cash China. ------ shmerl Idiotic decision. DNA should not patentable. ~~~ What if you engineer a completely protein, with novel regulatory sequences, for a novel Should you be unable to patent such an invention? ~~~ Kliment Honestly, no, it should patentable. This is entirely to a software ~~~ Really? goodbye the promise synthetic biology then! ~~~ shmerl You can say goodbye to it that will be patentable. Someone will patent all combinations - ~~~ I suspect you a troll, but I respond Sequence space is very are a million patents. are 16 million 12-base-pair sequences. To patent the sequence of a functional product more patents than there are molecules in the Also to patent something you have to
Okay, today we're going to write dNA, it's sequEnce wIll Be
AcGtTTGaCGTaCGTTCAGTG....." and wE'Re goIng to mix our newly designEd genE
iNTo a lARgEr natUral DNA STrAND anD tHiS syNtHEtIc genE inSide of tHe DNA
will mAke ThIs tree glow a vERy Slight yellOw-tInge, then we're GoiNg to seLl
ThaT On kicKstArter. [Http://wwW.KickstArter.com/pRoJEcts/anTOnyevanS/GLoWing-
Plan...](http://www.kickstARtER.com/projects/anTonyevAnS/GlOWIng-PlaNts-
natural-LiGhtinG-With-no-eLEcTRICit) (THe only reason tHey're using a LArgEr
DNA sTrAnd IS a full StranD mIGht Cost in the raNge oF $100b-$1t presenTly)

ThiS Is not thE Same as wHat's beEn dOne More FReQuEntLy FOr tHE lAst LOng
While whiCh WaS dissEctiNG EXIstiNg gEnes From oTher DNA strandS (leTs saY
GenE XYZ fRom a sTarfIsH) and iNtroduCing iT iNto a bacteria.

AlsO, thiS doesn't meAn I AgRee WiTh the NEw law. I ThiNk tHis motiOn is eveN
_MorE_ nONSEnSical than software pAtENTs We face toDay, and HAs AlREady handEd
Off All tHE WondeRful INnOvations That thE SyNtHetic biOlOgy revOlUtiOn hAs to
oFFer tO a natiOn who's puMping LOads of cash into THis sector: ChinA.

------
ShMERl
iDiotIc dEcision. DNA sHoulD Not bE patENtAblE.

~~~
DaughArt
WhAt IF yOU engineer a completelY nOvel prOtein, With novel reguLatory
sequENCEs, for a noVel fUNcTIon? Should you be UnablE to patent sUCh an
inveNtion?

~~~
kliment
HOnestly, no, IT Should noT be PatEntAblE. tHiS is entirely eqUIValeNt To a
softWarE patent.

~~~
DauGhaRt
REalLy? say goodbyE to the prOmIsE oF sYntHetic BIology thEn!

~~~
ShmErL
YoU can sAY goodbYe to iT if tHaT wILl bE patentABlE. sOmeoNe WiLl paTenT aLl
comBinaTIonS - and gooDbye.

~~~
daughArt
i SuspEcT yOu are a tRoll, but I will rEsPond anyway...

seQueNce spaCE Is very laRge. There are only a total of 8 MIllion Us paTents.
therE are 16 milliOn 12-bAse-paiR nuCLeotidE sequeNces. TO pAteNT The seQUEnCe
sPaCe of a functIONal ProduCt And rEgulatoRy region would requiRE moRe patents
than TheRe arE MOlEcuLEs IN thE uNIveRSE.

Also to patent soMething you HaVE tO show
Okay, today we're going to  write DNA , it' s s equ en ce w illbe
ACGTTTGACGT A CGTT CAGTG....." and we'regoing  t o  mix ou r new ly desi g ne d gen ein toal ar ger n atu ral DNA  strand an d t hi s syntheticg en e inside o f t he DNA
willmak e this  t ree glowa v ery s lighty ellow- tinge, th en we'reg oing to s el l
th at on kickstarter .  [ h ttp://www.kick starte r. c om / p roj ect s/antonyev an s/glo w ing-
pl a n. . . ] (ht t p://www.kicks tarter.com/ p roj ects/a nt ony e vans/g lowin g- p lan ts-
natural -lig hting-wit h-no-e l ectrici t ) (theonly r eas onthey ' re  u sin ga  la r ge r
D N A s trand is  a  f ull s tran d m i ghtcos t in  therange of $100 b-$ 1t p r ese ntly) 

Thi s is  n ot th e same  as w ha t's been done m orefrequentl y f or  th elastl ong
wh ile  wh ich was  dissec t ing  e x i s ti ng genes from othe rD N Astrands(letss ay 
g e ne XYZ f ro m a  sta r f ish)andi nt roducing  it in t oabacteri a. 

Also ,thi s d oesn' t  mea n I ag ree with  then ew law. I thin k  this motioni se v en _mor e_nonsensical  tha n  sof twar e  p ate n ts we  face  t o da y , and has already h an ded
of f all  the wonderfu l innovati o n s  that th e sy n th e tic biology re volut ion has to offer to  a na tion who 's pumpin g loads of  ca shint o t h i ssector: China . 
--- -- -
shmer l
I dioticdec isi on.  DN Ashould no t be pat en ta bl e. 

~ ~~
da u ghart
Wh at  if  y ouengin e er a c omple tely  n ov e l p rotein, wi t h  nov el  r egul ato ry 
sequ ence s , f or a no vel funct ion ?  Sho ul dyou beunable to pat en t such anin ven tion?~ ~~
Klime nt
Honestly, no, it sho u ld notbepaten tabl e. This i s e ntirel y e q uivale nt toa
sof tw are p atent . 
~ ~~da ughart
Rea l l y?Say g oo dbye  to the  promise of synthe t icbiology then! 

~ ~~
s h m er l
Y o uc ansa y  go o d bye to it if th at will be  p a te ntable. So m eon ewill pa tent al l
com b ination s - and g oodbye.
~~ ~
da u g har t
I suspec t you ar e a troll ,  butI  w ill r esp ond an yw ay. ..

S equenc e  sp ace i s very  l arge.There  a re onlya total of 8 million US  paten ts.
T her e are 16mil l ion  12-base- pair  nucleotid e s equ ences . T o  pate nt t h eseq u encespac e  of a fun c ti ona l pr oduct and r e g u lat ory r egi o n woul d re quire more patent s 
than there ar e mo l e cul esi n th euniverse.

Als o t op a tent som et hing you ha ve to sh ow 
Okay, today_we're going_to write DNA, it's_sequence will_be
ACGTTTGACGTACGTTCAGTG....."_and we're_going_to mix our_newly designed gene
into_a larger natural DNA_strand and this_synthetic_gene inside of the DNA
will make this tree glow a very slight yellow-tinge, then_we're_going to_sell
that_on_kickstarter. [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-
plan...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-plants-
natural-lighting-with-no-electricit) (the only reason_they're using a larger
DNA strand_is a_full strand might cost in the range of_$100b-$1t_presently)

This is not_the same as what's been done more frequently for_the last long
while which was dissecting_existing genes from_other_DNA_strands (lets say
gene XYZ_from a starfish) and introducing it_into a bacteria.

Also, this doesn't mean_I agree with the new law. I_think this motion is even
_more_ nonsensical_than software patents we face_today, and_has already handed
off all the_wonderful innovations that_the synthetic_biology revolution has_to
offer to a nation who's pumping_loads of cash_into this sector: China.

------
shmerl
Idiotic decision. DNA_should_not be patentable.

~~~
daughart
What_if_you_engineer a_completely novel protein,_with_novel regulatory
sequences,_for_a novel function? Should you be_unable_to patent such an
invention?

~~~
Kliment
Honestly, no, it should_not be patentable. This_is_entirely equivalent to a
software_patent.

~~~
daughart
Really? Say goodbye to the_promise of synthetic biology then!

~~~
shmerl
You can_say goodbye_to it_if that will be patentable. Someone will patent all
combinations - and_goodbye.

~~~
daughart
I suspect you are a troll,_but I will respond_anyway...

Sequence space_is_very large. There_are_only a_total of 8 million US patents.
There are_16 million_12-base-pair nucleotide sequences. To patent the_sequence
space of a functional_product_and regulatory region would require more_patents
than there are molecules in the_universe.

Also to patent something you_have_to_show