[Upd-discuss] patenting genes

[Lawrence Kolodney]

There's nothing strained about it.  This is the standard for patenting
any chemical compound, not just genes.  A chemical compound that is
useful (from a technology point of view) is generally only useful if
it can be isolated and manipulated in a laboratory or industrial
process to acheive some useful result.  

Many chemical compounds exist spontaneously in nature, but can't be
used in technological processes because either (1) they are not known
to science, (2) it is not known how to isolate or create them
synthetically, or (3) it is not known how to do something useful with
them.  

Thus the Patent Office grants a patent on a chemical to the first
person who teaches the world how to make and use the purified chemical
compound.  Same with genes.


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Stallman [mailto:rms@gnu.org]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 3:05 PM
To: rob@essential.org
Cc: upd-discuss@venice.essential.org
Subject: Re: [Upd-discuss] patenting genes


    I remain unclear on how it is that patents are granted for genes.
Why is
    not the discovery of a gene a non-patentable discovery rather than
a
    patentable invention?

The justification that the patent system offers is that the gene
has been isolated in a pure form, and that that is a substance
distinct from what is found in natural chromosomes.

It seems rather strained logic to me.  It seems to reflect a
desire on the part of the patent system to stretch its rules
to permit more kinds of patents.



_______________________________________________
Upd-discuss mailing list
Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss