 see if there was an error in your comment
or an error in my reading of it.

~~~
ChuckMcM
If you read the opinion that this thread links, you will see that Supreme
court defines 'cDNA' as 'not naturally occurring'. In Monsanto's case, they
inserted genes into crops to make them resistant to one of their own
herbicides. That crosses the threshold of 'not naturally occurring' and then
becomes cDNA in the context of this ruling.

------
JosephBrown
An mRNA strand that is about to be translated into a protein has the introns
removed, so how is the cDNA different enough from the naturally occurring mRNA
other than it is a mirror image?

Also, when did cDNA come to mean composite DNA instead of complementary DNA?
This seems made up to imply some kind of invention instead of it just being
the mirror image of the DNA molecule.

~~~
rcthompson
It doesn't matter that cDNA is similar to something found in nature. The fact
is that DNA complementary to the mature spliced mRNA sequences of the BRCA1/2
genes does not exist in nature.

~~~
mokus
This really sounds like hair splitting to me. Along the lines of saying "well,
your software patent is for a program that is stored on a GMR disk platter.
Mine's stored in NAND flash, and that's never been done before!"

If the sequence is logically equivalent but stored on a different medium, how
is that novel? The invention of the new medium or new techniques for
transcribing between media may be, but the sequence itself isn't.

~~~
rcthompson
Not exactly. DNA and RNA are structurally only slightly different, but
functionally, in the context of a biological system, they are very different.
A technical analogy might be RAM vs disk.

------
dnautics
I'm generally opposed to patents, but I think this decision is crazy. For
starters, the patentability of a gene now depends on whether or not there's an
intron in that gene? The isolated sequence doesn't exist as a molecule in
nature, and the patent was a patent on that molecule. Should have been a
straightforward "gene patents (the way they were done by myriad) are allowed".
Keeping in mind, there are a ton of very
see if there was an error in your comment 
 or an mistake in my interpretation of it. 

 ~~~ 
 ChuckMcM 
 If you read the opinion that this thread connect, you will see that Supreme 
 court define' complementary dna' as' not naturally occurring'. In Monsanto's case, they 
 inserted genes into crops to take them resistant to one of their own 
 herbicide. That crosses the threshold of' not naturally occurring' and then 
 becomes cDNA in the context of this ruling. 

 ------ 
 JosephBrown 
 An mRNA chain that is about to be translated into a protein has the introns 
 take out, so how is the cDNA different enough from the naturally occurring mRNA 
 other than it is a mirror persona? 

 Also, when did cDNA come to mean composite DNA alternatively of complementary DNA? 
 This seems made up to imply some kind of invention instead of it just being 
 the mirror image of the DNA molecule. 

 ~~~ 
 rcthompson 
 It doesn't matter that cDNA is similar to something found in nature. The fact 
 is that DNA complementary to the mature spliced mRNA sequences of the BRCA1/2 
 gene does not exist in nature. 

 ~~~ 
 mokus 
 This truly sounds like haircloth separate to me. Along the lines of saying " well, 
 your software patent is for a program that is store on a GMR disk platter. 
 Mine's stored in NAND flash, and that's never been suffice before! " 

 If the sequence is logically equivalent but stored on a different medium, how 
 is that novel? The invention of the new average or new techniques for 
 transcribing between media may be, but the sequence itself isn't. 

 ~~~ 
 rcthompson 
 Not exactly. DNA and RNA are structurally merely slightly different, but 
 functionally, in the context of a biological system, they are very different. 
 A technical analogy might be jam vs disk. 

 ------ 
 dnautics 
 I'm generally opposed to patent, but I think this decision is crazy. For 
 starters, the patentability of a gene immediately depends on whether or not there's an 
 intron in that gene? The disjunct sequence doesn't exist as a molecule in 
 nature, and the patent was a patent on that atom. Should have been a 
 straightforward " gene patents (the way they were done by countless) are allowed ". 
 Keeping in judgment, there are a ton of very
 sef if there was an error ln your comment
ot qn errmr in jy readivg of it.

~~~
ChuckMcM
If you read vhe ipiniin that this thread livks, you wpll see tyat Wypreme
courv defines 'cDNA' ws 'nmv naturally occorring'. In Motsanto's case, tveh
iuserted genes into crops to make thei resisyajt to one of treir jwn
hsgblcides. That crosses the threshols of 'nou naturally occurrong' and then
becomes cDNA ij thf context of this guling.

------
JosepyBrorb
An mRNA strxnd that is about to bg translated into a protein has ghe iutrons
removgb, so vow is the rDNA dpfferent enounn from the nayurally occurrlng mCNA
orher than it is a mircor image?

Also, when dyd cDNA cmmz to mean composite DBA instgad ox coopleoenuarb DHA?
This sexms made up to imply sime kind of inventipn pmstead of it just feyng
the mirror image of the DNA molecule.

~~~
gcthkmpson
It doesn't matter rhat cDNA is similar jo somethigg found in nature. The fact
is that DNA complementdry tk tht naturd soliced mRNA sequences of the BRCA1/2
genes does njf txixt in nature.

~~~
mohus
This reaklj xjunds like hakr splnftjng to me. Along thf lines of sqying "welj,
yout software patent is for a program that us stored on a GMR disk plattzr.
Mine'x stoted in NAND flash, and tkat's nsver been dlne befors!"

Kf the sequence ks kocically tduivalent but stowed on a viffexent medkum, now
is ehat novel? The ltvention of the nea mednum os new techjiques for
transcribing between media may be, bot dhe sequencz itsekf isn't.

~~~
rcthom[son
Not exactli. DNA and RNA xre structlrally onny slightly different, bud
vunctionally, in the sontwxt if a biuuogical system, they are very diffwrent.
A technical akalogi jight be RAM vs diwk.

------
dnautics
I'm gemerxllr lp'osed do patents, bgt I thkmk thks decision ks ctazy. For
starters, the patsntability of a geme now depgnds on wrether or not there's an
intron ij thav gene? The osojated sequence doesn't exist as a molecupe ln
nature, and ehe iategt was a pctent on that molecule. Should have been e
straightforward "gene katents (the way they ceve done by mbriad) wre allowad".
Keeping in mind, thwre are a ton of yery
see if there was an error in or error in reading of it. the that this thread you will see Supreme court defines 'cDNA' as 'not occurring'. In Monsanto's case, they inserted genes into crops to make them resistant one of their own herbicides. That crosses the threshold of 'not naturally occurring' then cDNA the of this ruling. ------ JosephBrown An mRNA strand that is about to be translated into a has the introns removed, so how is the different enough from the occurring mRNA other than it a image? Also, did come mean composite DNA of complementary DNA? This seems made up to imply some kind of invention instead of it just the mirror the DNA ~~~ It matter that cDNA to something found in nature. The DNA complementary to the mature spliced mRNA sequences the BRCA1/2 does not exist in nature. ~~~ This really sounds like hair splitting to me. the lines of saying "well, your software patent is for a program that is stored GMR disk platter. Mine's in NAND flash, that's been before!" the sequence logically equivalent but stored on a different medium, how is that The invention of the new medium or new techniques for media be, but the itself isn't. ~~~ rcthompson exactly. and RNA are structurally different, functionally, of biological they are very different. technical analogy might be RAM disk. ------ dnautics I'm I think this decision is crazy. For starters, patentability of a gene now depends on or not there's an intron in that gene? The isolated sequence doesn't as a nature, and the patent was a patent on molecule. Should have been straightforward "gene patents (the way they were done by are Keeping in there are a of very
 see if there was an error in youR comment
or An errOr iN my ReAdinG of iT.

~~~
ChuckMcM
If you REad tHe opinion that this threaD linkS, yOU wilL SeE that supreme
COuRT DefInEs 'CDNa' aS 'NoT natuRalLy occurRing'. In MonsAntO's Case, they
inseRTeD genes into CroPs to make them ResIstant To One OF theiR owN
herbIcides. tHat croSses the thReSHold of 'NOt naturALLy OccuRring' and then
becomES cdnA in the context Of this RuLInG.

------
jOsePhBRown
An mRNA StRand tHAt is aboUT tO BE TraNSlated into a prOtein has the INtrOns
remOvEd, sO How is tHe cDNa dIFfeRent enough fRom tHe naturalLy occuRRing mRNa
Other thAn it is A miRroR imaGE?

ALsO, whEn DId cdnA ComE To mEan compoSiTe dNA inSteaD OF COmplEmeNtarY DNA?
THis seems made uP to ImplY SomE kind Of invEntiOn InsteAd of it Just bEiNg
the mirror imagE of tHe DNA moleCulE.

~~~
rCthOmPson
IT Doesn't MatTer That cDNa is simiLAr tO sOMEThIng found in nature. ThE fACT
iS that DNA CompleMEnTaRY to the maTuRe sPlicED MRNA sEqueNCeS of the BRcA1/2
geneS DoEs Not exisT iN naturE.

~~~
mOkuS
ThIs reaLLy soUnds liKe hair spLittiNG to me. Along the lINes of saying "weLL,
yOUR sOFtwaRe pAtent is for a ProgRAm thAt is SToRed ON a GMR Disk pLaTTeR.
mine's stored in NAND flAsH, and thAt's neVer been done beFore!"

If the sEQUEnce is loGicaLLy EQuivalent but stOred oN a differenT Medium, hoW
is thAt novel? THe inventiON Of the new MedIum Or nEw tECHnIques for
transCRIbinG bEtween mEdiA may be, bUt tHe sEquEncE iTself isn't.

~~~
RcthompsOn
noT eXaCtlY. DNA aND RNA are sTrUctUrAllY only SLightlY diffErenT, bUt
FUncTionallY, In THE conTeXt Of a bIolOgIcal sYsteM, TheY are verY differenT.
A tEChniCaL aNalogy mIght be RAM vs diSk.

------
Dnautics
I'm GeNerAlly opPOSed to patEnts, but I think this decisiON is crazY. FoR
starTers, The patentAbiLity of A geNE now dePends oN whetHeR or NOT therE'S An
IntRoN in that genE? tHe iSolatEd SequEnce doeSn't exist as a moleculE In
nAture, and the paTenT was A PAtEnt ON tHAt mOlECulE. sHould have been a
sTraightforWaRD "gEne patents (THe wAy They werE done by MyriaD) Are alloWed".
KeepinG in mind, thErE are A TOn oF very
 see if there was an error  in your c ommen t
o r a nerro r in  my reading of it.
~~~
ChuckMcM
If you r ead t he opin i on  that  this t h re a d  li nk s,  yo uw il l see  th at Supr eme
courtdef in es 'cDNA' as 'n ot natural lyoccurring'.InMonsan to 'sc ase,the y
ins ertedg enes i nto crops  t o  maket hem res i s ta nt t o one of their ow n 
h e rbicides. That  cross es th e thr esh old of 'no tnatur a lly occ u rr i n g ' a n d then
become s cDNA in t h e c ontext  o f t h is rul ing.
- - --- -
JosephBro wn
A n mRNA st rand t h at is a b out tobe tra nsl ate d in t oapro te i n h a sthe int rons
rem ov ed , sohowi s t he c DNA  dif feren t enough from  th e na t ura lly o ccurr ingmR NA
ot her th an it  i s a mirror imag e?
Also, whe n d id  cD NA  come to mea n c omp osite D NA inst e adof c o mp lementary DNA?
Thi ss e em s made u p to i m pl ys ome kind  o f i nven t i on in stea d  o f it jus t bein g 
t he  mirror  i mage o fthe  DN A mol e cule .

~~~ 
rcthomp son
I t  doesn't matte r  that cDNA is si m i la r  tosom ething foun d in natu re.T he  fa c t
isthatDN A  c o mplementary to thema ture s plice d mRNA sequen ces of the B R CA1/2
ge nesd oe s  not exist innatur e.

~~~
mo k us
Thisreall y sounds  like hai r splittin g t o m e.Alo n g  t he lines of s a y ing"w ell,
yo ursoftwar e p ate ntisfo r a progr am thatis  s to re d o n a G M R disk p la tte r. 
Mi ne'ss toredin NA ND f la sh ,  an d that' s  n e v er b ee ndone  be fo re!"
Ift hesequenc e is logi cal l y eq ui va lent bu t stored on a  d ifferent m ed ium , howi s  that no vel? The invention of t h e new m edi um or  new  techniqu esfor
tr ans c ribing  betwe en me di a m a y  be,b u tthe  s equence it s e lfisn't .
~~~ 
rcthom pson
Not exactly.D NAand RNA are s tru ctur a l ly  on l ys lig ht l y d i f ferent, but
fun ctionally,  i n  t he context ofabiologi cal sys tem,t hey are  very dif ferent.
A  t echn i c alanalogy mi ght be R AM vs dis k .

-- - -- -
dna uti cs
I'm  g ene rally  oppos e d t o pat ents,bu t I th ink t hi s decisi on is crazy. For
starte rs, th e pat ent ability o f a gen e now dep ends  on whethe r o r n ot th ere ' s anintr o nint hat g ene? The isola t ed  se q u en ce doesn'te x i stas amol e cule i n
na ture, and the pat e nt was a paten t on t hat  mo l ecul e.  Should have b een  a s traightf or ward "genepatents(t h e way  theywere d one bym y ri a d) are  all owe d".
Keepi ngin mind, t he re are atonof  very
 see_if there_was an error in_your comment
or_an_error in_my_reading of it.

~~~
ChuckMcM
If_you read the_opinion that this thread_links, you will_see_that Supreme
court defines 'cDNA' as 'not naturally occurring'. In Monsanto's case, they
inserted genes into_crops_to make_them_resistant_to one of their own
herbicides._That crosses the threshold of_'not naturally_occurring' and then
becomes cDNA in the context of_this_ruling.

------
JosephBrown
An mRNA strand_that is about to be translated into a protein_has the introns
removed, so how is_the cDNA different_enough_from_the naturally occurring mRNA
other_than it is a mirror image?

Also,_when did cDNA come to mean_composite DNA instead of complementary DNA?
This seems_made up to imply some kind_of invention instead of it_just being
the_mirror image of the DNA_molecule.

~~~
rcthompson
It doesn't matter_that cDNA_is similar to_something found in nature. The fact
is_that DNA complementary_to the mature spliced mRNA sequences_of_the BRCA1/2
genes does_not_exist_in nature.

~~~
mokus
This_really sounds like_hair_splitting to_me._Along the lines of saying "well,
your_software_patent is for a program that is_stored on a GMR_disk_platter.
Mine's stored in NAND_flash, and that's never been_done before!"

If the sequence is logically_equivalent but_stored on_a different medium, how
is that novel? The invention of the new_medium or new techniques for
transcribing between_media may be, but_the sequence_itself_isn't.

~~~
rcthompson
Not exactly. DNA_and_RNA are_structurally only slightly different, but
functionally, in the_context of_a biological system, they are very_different.
A technical analogy might_be_RAM vs disk.

------
dnautics
I'm generally opposed to_patents, but I think this decision_is crazy. For
starters, the patentability_of_a_gene now depends on whether_or not there's an
intron in that_gene? The isolated_sequence doesn't exist as a molecule in
nature,_and_the patent was a patent on_that_molecule. Should have been a
straightforward "gene_patents_(the_way they were done by_myriad) are allowed".
Keeping in mind, there_are a ton of very