[ExI] Gene Patents: Good or Bad?

samantha sjatkins at mac.com
Fri May 28 22:26:43 UTC 2010


Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:37 AM, samantha <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>   So far
>   
>> I am pretty opposed to most types of gene patents, especially ones that
>> include little or no real invention.
>>     
>
> ### U.S. Patent Act (found in Title 35 of the United States Code)
> specifically requires that patents can only be issued on inventions
> (see http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/100.html). A patent cannot be
> issued under US law on a non-invention. Gene patents are issued after
> examiners at the US PTO determine the presence of an invention,
> therefore your objection pertains to either an empty set, or patents
> issued in contravention of the law.
>
>   

Due to the overwhelming of the PTO staff, likely in large part because 
of the large and growing volume of patents and kinds of patents,  and 
due to lack of expertise and clear guidelines in some newer technology 
areas, I would very much expect many mistakes to be made that may be 
difficult and expensive to live with or to undo.  That isn't a valid 
argument against gene patents in general though.

- s

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100528/ad062480/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list