This patent is WAY to broad, this could slow down development of synthetic life technology if every scientist who wants to study this has to pay royalties. You can't patent something like this, the system has to be reformed. Only creations that come from this technology should be able to be patented.
Wow is right. OMFG, or in this case, THEY are FGs! Sure, it's like, a totally new and customized gene sequence, but if you can patent GACAAT... whatever then wouldn't we all get one (and only one)? I picture whatever is the biological equivalent of the RIAA suing people for having "patented" gene sequences they got through evolution and heredity. So like, if somebody figures out and re-creates the sequence causing blue eyes, then would we all have to pay a license fee before we could have blue-eyed kids? And could they embed biological or genetic "DRM" on the sequence, so "non-licensed copies" manifest themselves by being biologically disabled? WTF? Ownership of combinations of proteins is wrong. We are more than a chemical equation, but if somebody can "own" that equation, we're, like, hosed.
blackcowJun 8, 2007
This patent is WAY to broad, this could slow down development of synthetic life technology if every scientist who wants to study this has to pay royalties. You can't patent something like this, the system has to be reformed. Only creations that come from this technology should be able to be patented.
happyfappyJun 8, 2007
Wow. You heard it here first. Say hello to "MICROBE-SOFT".
sh1595Jun 8, 2007
Wow is right. OMFG, or in this case, THEY are FGs! Sure, it's like, a totally new and customized gene sequence, but if you can patent GACAAT... whatever then wouldn't we all get one (and only one)? I picture whatever is the biological equivalent of the RIAA suing people for having "patented" gene sequences they got through evolution and heredity. So like, if somebody figures out and re-creates the sequence causing blue eyes, then would we all have to pay a license fee before we could have blue-eyed kids? And could they embed biological or genetic "DRM" on the sequence, so "non-licensed copies" manifest themselves by being biologically disabled? WTF? Ownership of combinations of proteins is wrong. We are more than a chemical equation, but if somebody can "own" that equation, we're, like, hosed.