The cDNA part baffled me and many molecular biologists I know back then (and still does). I tend to think that either 1) the court didn't understand the science or 2) they did but were unwilling to destroy an industry so they found a loophole.
It was already reported a while ago. And the ruling is rather silly. Artificially created DNA is suddenly patentable just because it was created artificially? It doesn't make any sense.
Yes, it's about time! But I don't understand the cDNA-is-patentable portion of the ruling -- if I isolate human RNA (finally declared to be a work of nature), and make cDNA off of it using RNA transcriptase (did I get that right?), then that's somehow patentable, but the DNA/RNA that it's based off of isn't? That seems contradictory
Reverse transcriptase. mRNA, and therefore cDNA, could have things like introns excised.
Still, that's like saying "A zip file can't be copyrighted, but whoever manages to copy the contents once it's been decoded by a third party can copyright the contents." The judgement does not seem to understand that cDNA libraries could be constructed relatively trivially nowadays with hardly a creative thought, with apologies to those who earned their postgraduate degrees doing such a thing.
I think the argument is that if you can show that the cDNA is merely a copy of a product of nature, it can't be patented. On the other hand, as per Bowman v. Monsanto, transgenic organisms can be patented.
> Myriad, based in Salt Lake City, argued that the genes in question had been "isolated" by the company, making them products of human ingenuity and therefore patentable.
That's like saying "I chopped off a branch of a tree, therefore I can patent the branch of the tree because I 'isolated' it."
The cDNA part baffled me and many molecular biologists I know back then (and still does). I tend to think that either 1) the court didn't understand the science or 2) they did but were unwilling to destroy an industry so they found a loophole.