
Supreme Court: Natural Isolated DNA Not Patentable, Synthetic DNA Is [pdf] - jakewalker
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_8njq.pdf
======
rvkennedy
Does this mean that someone born with synthetic DNA is guilty of infringement
if they have children? Do they need to buy a licence to keep living? Perhaps
as a compromise, the court can decide that they count as three fifths of a
person.

~~~
eldude
A historical correction to the misplaced tone of your 3/5ths reference, the
3/5ths compromise was by the anti-slavery republican north to prevent the
southern democratic slavers from dominating the House of Representatives and
the electoral college.[1]

[1] [http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/07/18/were-our-
found...](http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/07/18/were-our-founding-
fathers-racist-the-slaves-are-35ths-of-a-person-debate/)

~~~
michael_miller
I know you meant well with your comment, but in general, it's best to avoid
well-actually comments. This is one of Hacker School's core rules; they
elaborate on why it's a good idea to avoid these types of comments at
[https://www.hackerschool.com/manual](https://www.hackerschool.com/manual).

~~~
joshmlewis
What you linked to wasn't the HN 'manual'?

In the actual guidelines found here:
[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
it doesn't say anything about well actually comments. It says be smart in your
discussions and don't just get opinionated, it says to present facts and
actually address the thing that you're arguing over. I believe having proper
arguments and discussions is one of the core things HN is about. It lets
people learn and see other points of view. If you don't like a comment just
downvote it.

~~~
rickhanlonii
Furthermore, the character of 'well-actually' comments are that the orignal
comment was close to, or intended to be close to, a certain fact, and the
well-actualer is pedantically correcting the original without adding any
substantial value to the conversation.

This is not what happened here. rvkennedy did not make a statement of fact, he
made an off-the-cuff remark. eldude challenged the substance and tone of that
remark in order to prevent further misrepresentation of the point. He
corrected and clarified the remark in a clear and substal way, thus falling
well outside of the 'well-actually' category.

Oh dear. I've spent way too much time reading SCOTUS rulings/blogs today.

------
acqq
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/the-supreme-
court-s...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/the-supreme-court-s-bad-
science-on-gene-patents.html)

 _it is not the scientists who removed the introns from the officially
unpatentable original DNA sequence to make the new, patentable cDNA sequence.
It is nature itself, through the magic by which pre-RNA, which includes the
introns, becomes messenger RNA, which does not. The Supreme Court described
this process by saying, “the pre-RNA is then naturally ‘spliced’ by the
physical removal of the introns” -- that is, the introns are removed as part
of the ordinary process by which messenger RNA is created. The role scientists
then subsequently play is to take the messenger RNA and use it to synthesize
the intron-free cDNA.

To put it much more simply, there is nothing that a 6-year-old would consider
“invented” about the patentable cDNA. It is nothing more than the messenger
RNA flipped into a DNA sequence that omits unnecessary elements that nature
already excluded. The sequence that codes the proteins is just as naturally
occurring as the original DNA itself, which the court held couldn’t be
patented because it was naturally occurring. The distinction is, to put it
bluntly, a lawyer’s distinction, not a scientist’s._

(by Noah Feldman, a professor of constitutional and international law at
Harvard)

~~~
daughart
From what I understand, Myriad's test involved synthesis of cDNA (which we
scientists refer to as "complementary DNA", not "composite DNA" as SCOTUS
does). This is still covered by the patent. However, any test based on
sequencing the genomic DNA, for example, would not violate Myriad's patent.
Genomic sequencing of these genes was previously a violation of the patent.
This is definitely a step forward.

In the long run, Myriad is hosed because they no longer own the sequence,
including analysis. Any diagnostic not using reverse transcription of the mRNA
does not violate Myriad's patent. This includes synthesis of any non-cDNA
polymer, such as XNA.

~~~
alsocasey
The issue is that a hypothetical diagnostic attempting to sequence this region
would likely be pre-processed with a PCR to facilitate sequencing of only the
region of interest... this necessarily involves a cDNA step.

You could sequence the whole genome at higher depth, but this would be more
expensive.

Edit: My mistake, the patent covers the reverse transcription step
exclusively, not the act of transcription in general - which means PCR from
genomic DNA is fine, but rtPCR or cDNA library construction is not... no
scientific consistency there, but looks like cheaper BCRA tests in the near
future.

~~~
daughart
PCR is not covered by the patent, only reverse transcription of the processed
RNA molecule to cDNA. There are many flavors of genomic PCR that are fine
under this interpretation, including a rapid SNP-detecting digital qPCR.

------
mpyne
Unanimous judgment, though Scalia concurred in part and filed a separate
opinion.

Myriad kind of still wins as their cDNA synthesis technique is affirmed
patentable, which would presumably be used in conjunction with a patient's own
BRCA genes to determine their cancer risk. So the precise test itself appears
patented still, but now other companies can make use of the BRCA genes
themselves, perhaps to develop other treatments that don't use the cDNA
synthesis technique.

~~~
unmei
But they surely don't have a patent on _all_ cDNA synthesis techniques,
especially given that that is a highly generic technique (it should fall under
the "obvious from previous art" criteria). So other companies should be able
to utilize a cDNA as well so long as they don't simply follow the Myriad
protocol?

~~~
jweese
I believe they just have a patent on these _particular_ cDNA types, namely
cDNA created from BRCA1 or BRCA2, and not on the well-known lab techniques for
creating them.

~~~
daughart
I believe you are correct here.

------
ChuckMcM
While its not a complete win I think this is an ok compromise. Clearly Myriad
is going to be impacted as other people come up with ways to test for the
BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes without infringing on their process, and it will make
screening for these genes _much_ less expensive.

But it leaves open the question of "infringement" on cDNA when you aren't
party to the creation. Specifically the guys who have GMO Wheat growing in
their field in Oregon, if they didn't put it there, they didn't know it had
become GMO, and it was only discovered when Japan tested it, then what is
their liability? And what is Monsanto's? (GMO Wheat isn't approved) I suspect
these "escapes" of cDNA will become more common and the "factories" producing
them, things like e.coli and algae, won't really respect the owner's rights
here. :-)

~~~
carbocation
I do not see how there is any cDNA involved in a plant that has modified
genes.

Are you assuming that the plant is infected with a retrovirus?

A genome with a modified gene is not cDNA, and I'm not sure how to parse your
comment so I'm basically trying to see if there was an error in your comment
or an error in my reading of it.

~~~
ChuckMcM
If you read the opinion that this thread links, you will see that Supreme
court defines 'cDNA' as 'not naturally occurring'. In Monsanto's case, they
inserted genes into crops to make them resistant to one of their own
herbicides. That crosses the threshold of 'not naturally occurring' and then
becomes cDNA in the context of this ruling.

------
JosephBrown
An mRNA strand that is about to be translated into a protein has the introns
removed, so how is the cDNA different enough from the naturally occurring mRNA
other than it is a mirror image?

Also, when did cDNA come to mean composite DNA instead of complementary DNA?
This seems made up to imply some kind of invention instead of it just being
the mirror image of the DNA molecule.

~~~
rcthompson
It doesn't matter that cDNA is similar to something found in nature. The fact
is that DNA complementary to the mature spliced mRNA sequences of the BRCA1/2
genes does not exist in nature.

~~~
mokus
This really sounds like hair splitting to me. Along the lines of saying "well,
your software patent is for a program that is stored on a GMR disk platter.
Mine's stored in NAND flash, and that's never been done before!"

If the sequence is logically equivalent but stored on a different medium, how
is that novel? The invention of the new medium or new techniques for
transcribing between media may be, but the sequence itself isn't.

~~~
rcthompson
Not exactly. DNA and RNA are structurally only slightly different, but
functionally, in the context of a biological system, they are very different.
A technical analogy might be RAM vs disk.

------
dnautics
I'm generally opposed to patents, but I think this decision is crazy. For
starters, the patentability of a gene now depends on whether or not there's an
intron in that gene? The isolated sequence doesn't exist as a molecule in
nature, and the patent was a patent on that molecule. Should have been a
straightforward "gene patents (the way they were done by myriad) are allowed".
Keeping in mind, there are a ton of very facile ways of breaking such a gene
patent.

EDIT: Actually I'm completely opposed to patents.

EDIT2: Here is a more detailed analysis - I didn't post it earlier since
dreamhost was down.
[http://www.indysci.org/mission/onpatenting.html](http://www.indysci.org/mission/onpatenting.html)

~~~
daughart
This decision affirms a previous decision that synthetic modifications to DNA
sequences are patented - regardless of whether they have introns. You see, the
ruling suggests that the act of creating a new synthetic, modified DNA
molecule (in this case without introns) is patent-able. (Not a comment on your
opinion about patents, only the part about patentability relying on introns.)

~~~
dnautics
can you link to this previous decision?

~~~
daughart
"In Chakrabarty, scientists added four plasmids to a bacte- rium, which
enabled it to break down various components of crude oil. 447 U. S., at 305,
and n. 1. The Court held that the modified bacterium was patentable." Diamond
v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 309 (1980), If I am reading this correctly.

EDIT: Sorry I re-read my original comment - I meant "synthetic modifications",
not necessarily only to DNA, but to natural products in general.

~~~
dnautics
I think I was confused because you meant "patentable", not "patented".

But is not isolation by PCR a synthetic modification? If I made a useful
machine out of a single piece of wood using a six-axis subtractive tooling
device, would you argue that the machine is unpatentable because "it was
already there" _?

_ PCR actually goes even further - conceptually it's subtractive procedure but
it actually does so by creating copies within the specific boundaries. These
boundaries don't exist in nature, the act of specifying the boundaries is
creative, and without the prior research, non-obvious.

~~~
daughart
Yes, sorry I meant patentable. This ruling specifically says that merely
identifying the location of a gene and isolating it is not a patentable
transformation. PCR is not transformative because the dsDNA molecule exists in
nature. I think in this context isolation is similar in nature to discovery,
which is not a patentable activity.

~~~
dnautics
well, no, the supreme court has decided that effectively breaking four
covalent bonds is not transformative (your words). I think it's a wrong
decision. Even so, if you actually understand it, the act of PCR is an act of
creation, not transformation. That dsDNA molecule doesn't exist in nature.

For example, there is a molecule thiostrepton which is an antibiotic compound,
that's really quite poor. They have recently discovered that only the core of
the molecule is necessary for antibiosis, and removal of the rest of the
molecule improves its pharmacological properties. It's a distinct molecule,
created by the scission of 3 covalent bonds. Should it be unpatentable? Almost
certainly, somewhere in nature, there has a thiostrepton molecule that by
accident happened to have been cleaved at exactly the right places to render
the molecule. does that change your opinion?

I am not trying to defend the practice - I abhor patents - but a lot of people
are letting their emotional reaction to "patenting genes" get in the way of a
dispassionate and informed analysis of what actually is going on here.

~~~
daughart
Your perspective is confusing. You say that a modified form of thiostrepton
should not be patentable, even though the patent protects the molecule as well
as the process of chemical synthesis or purification, which often requires
significant innovation, and in this case the natural molecule is also
significantly modified. On the other hand, when you PCR something you are
generating a dsDNA molecule that is identical to the original molecule. I
understand PCR quite well, and doing PCR is not innovative or transformative.
You are creating something, sure, but it's an exact copy of something that
exists in nature. The Supreme Court clearly states here that merely finding
out where a genetic sequence is and isolating it is not patentable. The
process of PCR itself is an invention, and is patented (Cetus, Mullis).

It seems preposterous to say that you are strongly against patents, and then
say you think the patent should be much more restrictive. I have no emotional
reaction to patenting genes. I think patenting a significant modification of a
naturally occurring substance is completely reasonable as it protects the
investments involved in inventing and applying the modifications, while at the
same time allowing others to use and understand the development. Without
patents biotech would become full of trade secrets, holding back progress in
the field.

~~~
dnautics
Yeah, i'm against patents, but i think if we have them they should be applied
fairly and according to a clear set of rules instead. It's like saying, I'm
opposed to government being involved in marriage, but if we are going to have
it then homosexuals should be allowed to be married.

The only reason why the perspective seems confusing is because you're
conflating process with molecules. In general any given claim of a patent can
protect the molecule or the process. Myriad did not choose to claim the
process, because the process is obvious. But having a process that is obvious
does not necessarily make the molecule obvious.

Doing PCR is not innovative. But the process DOES transform one molecule into
another, unless your primers are exactly flush with the end of the dsDNA - in
which case it is merely a straight copying operation. OK? The molecule that
comes out at the end has a different covalent structure than the molecule that
you start with. Is that not true? if you don't believe that, then you would
make the claim that octane 'is the same as' dodecane, because it's just a
truncated version.

Also, it is not an exact copy of something in nature, unless that 'thing' is a
data fragment. It is an original molecule, that copies the data, but the
molecule is distinct. That is an important point. Molecule patents don't care
about the abstract qualities of something (beyond proving that it's useful).
Molecule patents only care about the structure of the molecule.

~~~
dnautics
addendum:

I am happy with the SCOTUS decision though from a pragmatic point of view,
because there is a prokaryotic gene I'd like to "steal", that's under patent
application right now of course prokaryotic genes have no introns, so I just
got a field day on it.

------
craigyk
While the second part is a bit disappointing. Does that mean if you manage to
successfully isolate a natural version of a patented cDNA, then that patent
becomes effectively invalid?

In practice this might not be the hardest thing to do. Do you like someone's
engineered version of a gene? Then transform some randomized libraries into
cell cultures (or add mutagens) and keep fishing until you extract a "natural"
copy that is the same as the patented cDNA.

------
abitsios
There's a new TV series that touches upon this - Orphan Black.

\---- Spoilers, obviously ----

So they're clones, and they have a "special repeating marker" of some sorts.
One of the clones is a biochemist, and she manages to decode it. Turns out, it
is a copyright message covering those organisms _and their biological
offspring_ as property of X corporation. \-------- Spooky, but wouldn't the
message get diluted after reproduction?

~~~
sageikosa
From what I understand, the likelihood of any cistron in the genetic code
getting diluted is dependent on the sequence length compared to the overall
length of the chromosome on which it can be found.

However, since this is sci-fi, it may be possible that some of the genetic
sequence is setup to actually alter the meiosis process and not perform any
"crossing over" events in egg cell construction.

------
akiselev
Can anyone with experience clarify this ruling? Is the SCOTUS saying that just
because the specific cDNA strand doesn't exist in nature (as far as I know),
then it is patentable?

Correct me if I misunderstood the ruling, but it seems to be absolutely
ridiculous. You could just automate the process of isolating genes, sequencing
them and statistically identifying their mRNA strands, isolating them, and
creating cDNA strands. I know this isn't technically "nonobvious" but if you
can automate the process to the point where you have robots spitting out gene
patents, then it's a pretty low bar.

~~~
dnautics
The process of making cDNA libraries (with and without robots) has long been
solved. Usually in order to get a patent you need to prove "usefulness" which
is not really automatable.

And if you want to read my writeup (which is slightly geared toward explaining
the biology from simple first principles,
[http://www.indysci.org/mission/onpatenting.html](http://www.indysci.org/mission/onpatenting.html))

------
quux
Darn, well there goes my plan to patent myself and require that my wife buy a
license before she can bear my children.

~~~
cwp
Copyright would be more appropriate there. Children could be considered
derivative works, but I don't see how they could be patent infringement.

~~~
lsiebert
You are a transformative work based on your dna anyway.

------
tocomment
Does this mean we'll soon see 1000s more SNPs available from 23andme? What are
the biggest new SNP's they can test for?

~~~
daughart
It absolutely should mean this. Maybe 23andme can be something more than a
toy.

~~~
tocomment
What are some examples of exciting new SNPs they could test for? Besides BRCA.

~~~
daughart
A quick Google search for "patented disease alleles" suggests Crohn's disease,
some forms of kidney disease, diabetes, and many more!

------
benjamincburns
At one point I heard that some farmers, who were unaware that their crops
contained patented genetic modifications as a result of uncontrolled natural
reproduction with other GM crops, were being sued by patent holders. Does this
ruling weigh in on this scenario?

It seems that inventions which copy themselves and masquerade in
difficult/expensive to detect ways (see plant reproduction, airborne pollen)
wasn't something foreseen by those who wrote our patent laws.

~~~
jadyoyster
This seems to be a myth:
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-
fi...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-
of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted)

------
RabbitAngstrom
A co-worker in my lab pointed out that Myriad's stock is actually _rising_ [1]
after the decision.The best guess is that Myriad's competitive advantage is
shifting to the enormous amounts of BRCA sequences they have obtained -- this
would increase the cancer-vs-normal mutation prediction power considerably.

[1] -
[http://www.google.com/finance?cid=658315](http://www.google.com/finance?cid=658315)

~~~
jfb
Also, they now have legal certainty whereas before the decision there was a
chance the whole kit and kaboodle would have been tossed out.

------
eldude
Michael Crichton's novel "Next"[1] was a fantastic exploration of the
implications of such issues being brought up here like: liability when the
infringing patents are in you, in animals, in human-animal hybrids capable of
human-level intelligence, and how the world deals with life when Man plays
god.

Another excellent book on the ethics of bio-engineering and patentability is
the true story, "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks."[2]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_(novel)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_\(novel\))
[2] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Immortal-Life-Henrietta-
Lacks/dp/1...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Immortal-Life-Henrietta-
Lacks/dp/1400052181/)

------
daughart
This sets the stage for a simple way to overturn any cDNA patent. Somewhere in
the body of any person infected with a retrovirus such as HIV exists a
completely natural molecule of BRCA1 cDNA.

~~~
dnautics
I'm pretty sure prior art doesn't work that way.

~~~
daughart
Isn't the standard here whether or not these molecules exist in nature? Honest
question.

~~~
dnautics
You can't just assert that it exists. You'd have to show that it exists.

~~~
daughart
That should be trivial, if you had a large sample and money for sequencing.
The consensus in the listservs I'm on is that cDNA patentability will fall
next because of these and other inconsistencies (cDNA existing in nature,
being a non-natural transformation).

~~~
dnautics
That hinges on the definition of non-natural. Is a nuclear reactor non-
natural? Are you sure?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor)

Just because you're using components that exist in nature that may come
together and occasionally produce the result you want - when a human hand
enters the picture to do it deliberately and get a controlled result, to gain
a certain end, that's qualifies it as non-natural.

------
snowwrestler
This is the right result. Great news.

------
niels_olson
What if your life is saved from the debilitating effects of an enzyme
deficiency by a virally-delivered sequence which also infects your
spermatocytes (1)? And that sequence is passed to your child?

(1)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_immunology#The_effec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_immunology#The_effects_of_infections_and_immune_responses_on_the_testis)

------
niels_olson
> The nucleotides that code for amino acids are “exons,” and those that do not
> are “introns.”

Should read "the nucleotide _sequences_ ". If they can't get the definitions
right, why is the rest of the opinion valid?

Is it time for a "Court of Science" at the district or appellate level?

------
alok-g
Do they allow patenting a DNA sequence specified by a regular expression or a
grammar? Also, what happens if the synthetic DNA is later found to exist
naturally?

------
caycep
Kind of wondering, did Clarence Thomas actually write this, or did it fall to
some young law clerk that had to take a crash course on molecular genetics?

------
albertzeyer
Isn't all synthetic DNA based on natural DNA?

~~~
bdg
No. Natural DNA occurs in nature, much like a the alignment of magnetic fields
may occur in some metals. Synthetic DNA has been designed by someone who sat
down and said "Okay, today we're going to write DNA, it's sequence will be
ACGTTTGACGTACGTTCAGTG....." and we're going to mix our newly designed gene
into a larger natural DNA strand and this synthetic gene inside of the DNA
will make this tree glow a very slight yellow-tinge, then we're going to sell
that on kickstarter. [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-
plan...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-plants-
natural-lighting-with-no-electricit) (the only reason they're using a larger
DNA strand is a full strand might cost in the range of $100b-$1t presently)

This is not the same as what's been done more frequently for the last long
while which was dissecting existing genes from other DNA strands (lets say
gene XYZ from a starfish) and introducing it into a bacteria.

Also, this doesn't mean I agree with the new law. I think this motion is even
_more_ nonsensical than software patents we face today, and has already handed
off all the wonderful innovations that the synthetic biology revolution has to
offer to a nation who's pumping loads of cash into this sector: China.

------
shmerl
Idiotic decision. DNA should not be patentable.

~~~
daughart
What if you engineer a completely novel protein, with novel regulatory
sequences, for a novel function? Should you be unable to patent such an
invention?

~~~
Kliment
Honestly, no, it should not be patentable. This is entirely equivalent to a
software patent.

~~~
daughart
Really? Say goodbye to the promise of synthetic biology then!

~~~
shmerl
You can say goodbye to it if that will be patentable. Someone will patent all
combinations - and goodbye.

~~~
daughart
I suspect you are a troll, but I will respond anyway...

Sequence space is very large. There are only a total of 8 million US patents.
There are 16 million 12-base-pair nucleotide sequences. To patent the sequence
space of a functional product and regulatory region would require more patents
than there are molecules in the universe.

Also to patent something you have to show use.

~~~
shmerl
I was showing sarcasm. Patenting a molecule is a ridiculous idea, but you
insist that it's about the process of making it. I'm pointing out that the
result is not about the process, but about the molecule.

~~~
daughart
I genuinely don't understand your point.

If a group of people synthesize and test many synthetic DNA sequences and then
patent the useful ones, that seems fine to me. You might even call them
"synthetic biologists". They have invented new things, which are not found in
nature, by the process of their own skills, knowledge, and labor, and which
are useful to other people. It seems perfectly reasonable that those
inventions should be protected by the patent system.

~~~
shmerl
I find the concept of patenting new biological entities rather scary and
dangerous. They should not be patentable. Patent system is easily abused for
many things unrelated to encouraging innovation. Therefore there is nothing
reasonable in allowing these patents just because it takes time and effort to
come up with synthesis method.

~~~
daughart
Unjustified fear is not a rational basis for policy.

It's not the synthesis method that is at stake here, it is the engineered
biological system itself (system referring to a gene, regulatory sequence,
genetic pathway, or organism). The kind of innovation involved in this kind of
engineering is precisely what the patent system is designed to protect, so
that it can be monetized while also disseminated. Without patents these
innovations will remain trade secrets and hold back the progress of synthetic
biology. Without patents private companies may not be able to justify
investment required for innovation. Without patents inability to monetize
inventions reduces the overall economic impact (return on investment) for
public financing of life sciences, which in turn removes a powerful incentive
for government financing of research.

For instance, a company finds a compound that fights cancer. The company
invents a way to synthesize or purify this compound and sell it. The patent
protects the inventor and allows them to recoup the investment. This is widely
accepted. Now consider that company engineers an organism that can produce the
compound in large bio-reactors. The modified organism - and in particular the
engineered DNA sequences - are completely analogous to the chemical
manufacturing process, and should be similarly protected.

Moreover, consider that the second process may remove a need to use the
organic carbon precursors necessary for chemical synthesis (fossil fuels), or
eliminates a toxic by-product of chemical synthesis, or is much cheaper and
therefore reduces the cost of the compound, benefiting the public. These are
real world consequences of synthetic biology protected by the patent system.
They don't seem so scary to me.

~~~
shmerl
In general I find the patentability of medicines a very abused practice.
Pharma industry is one of the most corrupted, and especially when it comes to
patents. So your example serves do disprove your point.

~~~
daughart
At least I have provided clear arguments. You have continued to make
assertions (such as pharma being corrupted with respect to patents) without
any kind of proof or even a clear argument as to why this is the case. I
suggest you consider not taking any drug developed under or protected by US
patent law in protest.

~~~
shmerl
Well, many don't just consider - but simply can't take them. Because of the
price, controlled by those who acquired the patent. When life saving medicine
becomes a business for the sake of money - that's already bad.

------
frozenport
I can live with this: As a general rule of thumb nature isolated is not
patentable, Synthetic is.

------
chris_wot
You can make synthetic DNA?!?

~~~
archgoon
Yes. This has been around for several decades. Furthermore, you can request
companies on the internet to synthesize sequences for you and mail you the
results.

(First result from google)

[http://www.invitrogen.com/](http://www.invitrogen.com/)

Wikipedia Article

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gene_synthesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gene_synthesis)

------
dnautics
interesting side effect - prokaryotic genes are basically unpatentable!!

------
Fuxy
Yes! Finally some forward progress. Still needs work though.

------
gridmaths
sweeeet... sanity prevails!

------
furconit
Patents are silly !

