Case may have far reaching results on plant patents

[hoodat]

Although this case was not about plant patents but about patenting of human genes judge Sweets' ruling may have far reaching results RE plant patents and possibly give us some relief from the GMO peoples' arrogance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html

"Judge Sweet, however, ruled that the patents were improperly granted because they involved a law of nature. He said that many critics of gene patents considered the idea that isolating a gene made it patentable a lawyers trick that circumvents the prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.

"The case could have far-reaching implications. About 20 percent of human genes have been patented, and multibillion-dollar industries have been built atop the intellectual property rights that the patents grant".

 

[Shiloh Acres]

I also like this part:

"The human genome, like the structure of blood, air, or water, was discovered, not created."

See, that's what I thought too.

 

[hoodat]

So the only one that could hold a patent on it is God and I don't think he cares that much about profits.

 

[wifezilla]

Exactly Hoodat. I think there might have been something in the bible about it if was that important. Wait! Maybe that is what tithing is all about....

 

[vfem]

I was so excited to see this yesterday I shared it on Facebook right away and got lots of feedback. Most people agree. A gene or dna is a discovery. Its only bendable by nature, and just because we figured out HOW to do it, doesn't mean we should or that we could own the right to it.

I do honestly think, if there is no profitablity left for things of this nature, eventually the corporate sponsors of the research will stop funding it until they find another means of profit from it.

Its like open source programming... there are companies they grow off of open source programs. So I feel there is room to grow, without owning the world.