kallend 2,180 #1 June 13, 2013 www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-may-not-be-patented/2013/06/13/9e5c55d2-d43d-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html Unanimous SCOTUS.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 905 #2 June 13, 2013 Just plants and animals so far then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 June 13, 2013 The ruling was interesting and made sense to me. Right after the opinion was released the stock for Myriad rocketed up 10% to something like a five year high. The court held that human genes as found in nature are not patentable. BUT - they DO have the right to patent composite DNA that they manufacture that is not in a form found in nature. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #4 June 13, 2013 lawrocket The ruling was interesting and made sense to me. Right after the opinion was released the stock for Myriad rocketed up 10% to something like a five year high. The court held that human genes as found in nature are not patentable. BUT - they DO have the right to patent composite DNA that they manufacture that is not in a form found in nature. Sweet - I wonder if Lara Croft feels happy with this decision.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #5 June 13, 2013 lawrocketThe ruling was interesting and made sense to me. Right after the opinion was released the stock for Myriad rocketed up 10% to something like a five year high. The court held that human genes as found in nature are not patentable. BUT - they DO have the right to patent composite DNA that they manufacture that is not in a form found in nature. My understanding is the the cDNA genes are in the form found in nature, but have had the non-coding parts of the DNA removed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 June 13, 2013 kallend***The ruling was interesting and made sense to me. Right after the opinion was released the stock for Myriad rocketed up 10% to something like a five year high. The court held that human genes as found in nature are not patentable. BUT - they DO have the right to patent composite DNA that they manufacture that is not in a form found in nature. My understanding is the the cDNA genes are in the form found in nature, but have had the non-coding parts of the DNA removed. That's what the opinion said. "The nucleotides that code for amino acids are "exons," and those that do not are "introns." Scientists can extract DNA from cells to isolate specific segments for study. They can also synthetically create exins-only strands of nucleotides known as composite DNA (cDNA). cDNA contains only the exons that occur in DNA, omitting the intervening introns." Held: "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #7 June 13, 2013 lawrocket******The ruling was interesting and made sense to me. Right after the opinion was released the stock for Myriad rocketed up 10% to something like a five year high. The court held that human genes as found in nature are not patentable. BUT - they DO have the right to patent composite DNA that they manufacture that is not in a form found in nature. My understanding is the the cDNA genes are in the form found in nature, but have had the non-coding parts of the DNA removed. That's what the opinion said. "The nucleotides that code for amino acids are "exons," and those that do not are "introns." Scientists can extract DNA from cells to isolate specific segments for study. They can also synthetically create exins-only strands of nucleotides known as composite DNA (cDNA). cDNA contains only the exons that occur in DNA, omitting the intervening introns." Held: "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring." I suppose it all depends on what "is not" is.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #8 June 13, 2013 Well, there goes my get-rich-quick scheme. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
