A patent on your DNA? What the Supreme Court ruling means for you

[OmahaBlueDog]

A patent on your DNA? What the Supreme Court ruling means for you

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18781511-a-patent-on-your-dna-what-the-supreme-court-ruling-means-for-you?lite

Can someone else patent your genes? The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule some time this month on that question – a suit filed against Myriad Genetics for its patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations, which raise the risk of breast, ovarian and certain other cancers.

Opponents of patenting human DNA say a ruling in favor of Myriad will mean companies can own your genes, even though experts say it's more complicated than that. The patents set off a cascade of effects, opponents argue: it gives the company a monopoly on the test that can identify whether patients have the BRCA mutations so other companies can't offer their own tests as a second opinion. There's also no one to compete with the Myriad's $3,000 price tag on the test.

Myriad has long argued that it's not patenting anyone's genes. Instead, the company says, it separates them from the rest of the DNA and creates lab-made copies -- and that's what is patented and used in the test. The company has also licensed a few medical centers to run second-opinion tests.

But some say that regardless of how the court decides, it's likely the average person won't really be affected in any obvious, immediate way. Myriad's first 20-year patent on the genes runs out next year, although patent experts say the company has a variety of opportunities to extend that by a few years.

I wonder if this case from 2001 might serve as precedent in this instance:

(Dec. 19, 2001 – CropChoice news) – The following is an analysis of last week’s Supreme Court decision in the case of PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL v. J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, FARM ADVANTAGE, et al. 534 U.S. (2001). After the analysis, you’ll find a letter that North Dakota farmer Rodney Nelson wrote to North Dakota Sens. Dorgan and Conrad and Rep. Pomeroy about this decision and about the issue of seed saving.

by the International Center for Technology Assessment

In February, 1998, Pioneer Hi-Bred International sued a small Iowa seed and agricultural supply company named Farm Advantage, its co-owner Marvin Redenius, and several of its sales representatives for infringement of seventeen (17) Pioneer hybrid (non-genetically engineered) corn seed plant patents. The legal action alleged that Farm Advantage purchased corn seed from licensed Pioneer seed dealers and then offered the seed for resale. Pioneer claims that unauthorized resale of its corn seed violates its patents because the company only allows authorized Pioneer sales representative to sell the seed.

In responding to the law suit, Farm Advantage raised numerous defenses including a fundamental challenge to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s ("PTO&quot decision to allow the patenting of plants. Farm Advantage claims that its resale did not infringe on Pioneer’s patent because the patents were invalid as a matter of law.

The case J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. Farm Advantage, et al. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.. ("Farm Advantage&quot was heard by the Supreme Court in the October 2001 term. With this case the Court was faced with the straightforward issue of whether the PTO had illegally extended "utility" patent protection rights, under §101 of the Patent Act, to sexually reproducing plants. (Section, §101, of the Patent Act defines what products can obtain a utility patent.) In a 1985 decision, Ex Parte Hibberd, the PTO decided, without congressional approval, to extend patent protection to seeds. Since that time it has granted more than two thousand seed patents.

More at: http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstrya594.html

[KentuckyWoman]

1. that makes no sense.

Myriad says they clone your DNA to do the test and they think they own the clone. I guess their logic is the same as the barber owning the hair on the floor or maybe the photogragher owning the picture rights.

What makes no sense is "corporations are people" ctowd also keeps telling me a 1 second old fertilized egg is a person. If that is true then human dna is a person too so even if cloned it is illegal to own people.