So… you’re asking me to believe the losing side, when the losing side had an expert and the chance to present his expert’s testimony to the court? And the jury had the chance to weigh the credibility of both sides’testimony after seeing them face to face? But you would have me belive that you are in a better position to judge the truth of the matter?
You’re quick to suggest it reached the wrong answer here.
What’s the rest of the story, then?
But then they’ll start granting patents on mRNA.
Wait, so if a rival biotech company has a patent on the DNA sequence of a gene but not on the protein sequence, can I just change a few codons to equivalent ones to make a gene to produce the identical protein without treading on their DNA sequence patent?
I have no idea. This case isn’t over, of course. It’s going to get appealed up the ladder. For some reason I’m dreading the Supreme Court weighing in on this one.
In my experience, no. The claims are usually such that an equivalent cDNA expressing the same thing is also covered. The claims are usually written something like “We claim sequence 1 or any cDNA molecule that hybridizes under X stringency conditions” with those conditions being that any equivalent DNA molecule will be covered. Of course if you don’t have the protein sequence patent, it doesn’t matter what your DNA patent is. This only applies if you want to sell the DNA or a purified recombinantly expressed protein. Companies produce them for internal R&D without concern for the patent.
Again, in my experience anyway.
These patents are largely worthless these days. I currently have a gene that I’ve discovered a novel function for, that has some pretty serious implications. My lawyers (at a company) won’t bother to file the patent until I have a therapeutic against this gene, in which case we would be patenting the therapeutic, and not the gene.
There is simply no such thing as just patenting a gene anymore. Ten years ago, yes. I have a few. They are worthless.
Admittedly I do not know the particulars in this case. As presented in this thread though I am hard pressed to see the SCOTUS overturning this ruling.
To me it is like I invent a “Granite Detector” used to find oil (I know, oil is not in granite…just an illustration). My detector “beeps” when it senses granite underground.
Can I patent granite? Of course not! I doubt the SCOTUS could see it otherwise assuming the info in this thread is all we need to know about this.
I think the analogy to them identifying a gene is the same here.
Now, patenting the detector that beeps when granite (or the particular gene in this case) is present I am fine with.
I see what you did there.
“Often, honest citizens will report those who break the law. The same is true for patent infringement involving saved seed. The vast majority of farmers respect patent laws and honor their agreements to abide by that law. When one farmer sees another farmer saving patented seed, they will often report them. Many of the tips Monsanto gets about farmers saving patented seeds come from other farmers in the same community.” (From Marley23’s post above)
Is it just me or does that just blow your notion of farmers being tight-knit and neighborly and out to help each other into a group who will gleefully turn you over to be screwed by the corporation?
Maybe they hope they can then buy their neighbor’s farm cheap when the bank auctions it.
Imagine you are an honest farmer, saving your own seed carefully despite the current difficulties, and you see your neighbor flaunting the rules. Your other neighbor has gone the corporate route and is paying big bucks for that seed. The cheater is screwing both of you, either by avoiding the hard work of saving seed properly, or by getting the GM seed for cheap. Of course the cheater is going to get reported!
Maybe it is just me but I think the neighborly thing to do would be to discuss it with the other farmer first and suggest if he continues he’ll get reported. Give the guy a chance to correct the problem before throwing him under the bus.
Who knows, maybe they do have that talk. I have no idea but I’d think it would be foolish for someone to continue flaunting the rules knowing someone will talk to Monsanto and he’ll soon get creamed by a battalion of lawyers.
I think there’s an underlying tone in this discussion, and this post has it stronger than most.
Deep down, Whack, isn’t it true that you just don’t think it’s a bad thing for these farmers to replant seed in violation of their agreement? It seems like the “dissent” here is looking for all sorts of reasons to hang their hat on coming down against the company… Monsanto pollen illegally pollinated their field; Monsanto trespassed to get the evidence so it should be thrown out; farmers who report violations are assholes and farmers who don’t are good neighbors.
Really, that’s at the bottom of it, isn’t it? Monsanto may “technically” have the “law” on their side, but really, they’re a big evil company and deserve to get screwed.
Am I at all close?
Not close since if you re-read the thread I think you will see I more lean to Monsanto’s (and your) side in this.
I do however suspect Monsanto is probably guilty of bullying behavior. That is not to say they do not have the law on their side. They have a right to protect their product from being stolen.
Perhaps a more clear example would be the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA). The law may be firmly on their side but I believe they are guilty of bullying behavior.
As such you will not see me cheering on Monsanto in their efforts even while I grant they are within their rights to do it.
Purely unintentional, believe it or not.
Actually, this is a much less clear example. People need to eat. You can argue that independent farmers are important to food security in the future. Nobody needs to make unauthorized copies of songs. And in the cases that have gone to court, the record companies have left it up to the jury to decide damages.
It seems to me that in order to be free of your definition of “bullying,” the record companies would have to entirely abandon their legal rights.
Here are some examples of bullying:
RIAA sues the dead
RIAA Sues Homeless Man
Entertainment industry accuses campus laser-printers of downloading Indiana Jones (ok…that one is the MPAA)
12-Year-Old Sued for Music Downloading
RIAA sues computer-less family
RIAA sues hospitalized teen
RIAA Sues Family Dog
Family dog one (above) is a parody…my bad.
You are fully aware I’m sure, that much online activity is anonymous, and I’m sure you also prefer it that way. The fact that certain defendants turned out to be dead or homeless or not the owners of the IP addresses that were associated in their names is both unavoidable and also not all that much of a problem, once the situation is brought to light. Any other situation would be far more intrusive.
Laser printer - You realize that this was a DMCA takedown notice and not a lawsuit? And furthermore, according to your link, it was a prank that was intentionally setup.
If you really find these circumstances as outrageous as you imply, then you should be arguing for more reliable tracking of online users. But somehow I think you wouldn’t be in favor of that, because you’d rather that the copyright owners just forgo enforcing their rights altogether.
Look, this thread is not about the RIAA. Suffice it to say their tactics and abuse of the system are legendary at this point. It is not hard to find copious amounts of discussion and articles on this out there.
Then maybe you shouldn’t have tried to drive-by them.
“Legendary” = Subject to widespread propaganda and whining.