« state | Main | difference »
November 03, 2010
patent
I'm glad to see that the justice department ruled on gene patents. In this case, I don't believe it's the role of patent office to decide what should be patentable. Native genes should never be patented and I would argue that manipulated genes should not be patented. Patenting genes would be like trying to patent words in literature or in the computer science world, patenting programming structure.
My argument is that the technology that detects breast cancer genes should be patentable but the actual gene, BRCA, should not be patentable and I would argue the information should be available for other breast cancer detection technologies.
In this field like computer science, it is very difficult to work in a closed source system. But, imagine if Microsoft owned programming definitions or Java the class system. We pay enough to these companies for their technologies without conceding to their greed.
Here, we see again businesses moving faster than the law or even the understanding of the coming biological revolution. For once, someone in the justice system has taken a biology class and not bowed to the pressures of a manipulative lawyer. Maybe, it's a plus that the biological revolution comes after the Internet.
Posted by azileretsis at November 3, 2010 04:28 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)