[extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies.

Robert Bradbury robert.bradbury at gmail.com
Tue Dec 6 21:57:44 UTC 2005


On 12/6/05, Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I do not think any naturally occurring gene should be patentable.
>

Generally speaking they aren't.  today one would most likely have problems
with the "novelty" part of patent requirements.  Generally speaking what
one patents is the novel application (i.e. the use) of a gene in a new way
--
engineered into a new organism, involved in a new genetic test, etc.

A lot of the patenting that may have gone on early in the biotech era has
now been transcended by the rapid rate of development (one can find
similar genes/pathways in other organisms, etc.).  Gene sequences were only
worth something in the late '90s or early in this decade.  Now they don't
even
justify the cost of the lawyers.  This is a case where the usefullness of a
patent
expires long before the patent itself does.

I would suggest that people not extremely familiar with the current
realities
in this area should not be citing "old" knowledge bases, particularly any
that
might be based on past "press" publications rather than a detailed
understanding
of patent law, reading actual patents, and the state of progress with
respect
to technical aspects of genomics and the genomics knowledge bases.

I do have some knowledge in these areas and even I hesitate to comment
because I realize how imperfect my own knowledge base may be.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051206/6d862235/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list