1st April 2010, 7:05 AM
http://consumerist.com/2010/03/judge-say...genes.html
So apparently a genomics company patented already existing genes based on the idea that they "could isolate" them. They were chiefly using this for exclusive rights to a test for cancer. Well, that sort of immorality has been overturned. Yeesh, what a horrible thing to do.
While they didn't excercise it, I can just imagine someone discovering they have these genes, and on top of the cancer issues, their parents get sued for copyright infringement. This is the problem with patenting the fundamental recipe of life, it's just too fundamental.
So apparently a genomics company patented already existing genes based on the idea that they "could isolate" them. They were chiefly using this for exclusive rights to a test for cancer. Well, that sort of immorality has been overturned. Yeesh, what a horrible thing to do.
While they didn't excercise it, I can just imagine someone discovering they have these genes, and on top of the cancer issues, their parents get sued for copyright infringement. This is the problem with patenting the fundamental recipe of life, it's just too fundamental.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)