with all the vitriol against GMO

[uclaLabrat]

How much uproar is there going to be when gene vector drugs start being approved and we have GMO people?

 

[gevorg]

zombie apocalypse

 

[shira]

And what happens when Man A is "enhanced" with a particular Monsanto gene, and marries Woman B, with whom a child is produced. If the gene is patented and the child ends up having the gene, will Monsanto be able to sue for copyright infringement and get custody of the child?

 

[lozina]

OkCupid will have a checkbox next to their potential match filters next to smoking status and body type: "Non GMO"

 

[uclaLabrat]

And what happens when Man A is "enhanced" with a particular Monsanto gene, and marries Woman B, with whom a child is produced. If the gene is patented and the child ends up having the gene, will Monsanto be able to sue for copyright infringement and get custody of the child?

Pretty sure Monsanto specializes in plants, you'll have to find a new bogeyman

 

[MongGrel]

zombie apocalypse

Probably in progress all ready according to Stewox

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And what happens when Man A is "enhanced" with a particular Monsanto gene, and marries Woman B, with whom a child is produced. If the gene is patented and the child ends up having the gene, will Monsanto be able to sue for copyright infringement and get custody of the child?

No. Plants aren't people, however many people are plants.

 

[master_shake_]

And what happens when Man A is "enhanced" with a particular Monsanto gene, and marries Woman B, with whom a child is produced. If the gene is patented and the child ends up having the gene, will Monsanto be able to sue for copyright infringement and get custody of the child?

as long as the people are not so genetically modified where you have to put it on their label, but genetically modified enough that their patent is valid.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

No. Plants aren't people, however many people are plants.

First of all, i'm fairly sure you get the point, Monsanto are patenting food supply and surely a company that did this would be able to patent those genes and use the same methods to ensure they do not spread without their permission.

Second, i don't give a fuck if you are a conservative, liberal or even libertian, supporting a company having patents regarding the food supply is a BAD idea and anyone with half a brain can understand that if they are not filled with awe over how great of a super duper company Monsanto is.

This patent shit was bad enough when it affected tech companies but when it creeps into our food supply it's quite the fuck enough. I don't give a shit whether farmers agree to this or not but at one point, some day, when you can't live without it they will charge you ten times as much just because they can. This is a corporation in charge of your food supply and their first and only mission is not to supply you with edible food, it's to make money.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

as long as the people are not so genetically modified where you have to put it on their label, but genetically modified enough that their patent is valid.

Perhaps put a bit of wheat gene in there, it's the same as natural breeding, right?

 

[Iron Woode]

Probably in progress all ready according to Stewox

don't worry he will buy some anti-zombie drugs from Alex Jones.

 

[uclaLabrat]

First of all, i'm fairly sure you get the point, Monsanto are patenting food supply and surely a company that did this would be able to patent those genes and use the same methods to ensure they do not spread without their permission.

Second, i don't give a fuck if you are a conservative, liberal or even libertian, supporting a company having patents regarding the food supply is a BAD idea and anyone with half a brain can understand that if they are not filled with awe over how great of a super duper company Monsanto is.

This patent shit was bad enough when it affected tech companies but when it creeps into our food supply it's quite the fuck enough. I don't give a shit whether farmers agree to this or not but at one point, some day, when you can't live without it they will charge you ten times as much just because they can. This is a corporation in charge of your food supply and their first and only mission is not to supply you with edible food, it's to make money.

You do realize the supreme court just ruled that patents involving genes from natural sources aren't valid, right?

 

[MasterOfUsers]

You do realize the supreme court just ruled that patents involving genes from natural sources aren't valid, right?

So what? Synthesizing genes isn't hard at all, it's highly unpredictable (for some strange reason this holds true only to some things, like genes, vitamin E and some amino acids) but it's not all that hard.

It would mean that every crop would carry a syntesized gene though, this isn't really a good solution because it will deteriorate fairly quickly.

But... wouldn't that mean that all current patents from Monsanto are now void?

 

[uclaLabrat]

So what? Synthesizing genes isn't hard at all, it's highly unpredictable (for some strange reason this holds true only to some things, like genes, vitamin E and some amino acids) but it's not all that hard.

It would mean that every crop would carry a syntesized gene though, this isn't really a good solution because it will deteriorate fairly quickly.

But... wouldn't that mean that all current patents from Monsanto are now void?

First part: I'm not sure what you're saying here, it's infinitely more difficult on average (in my estimation) to synthesize genes (recombinant DNA technology) than to synthesize small molecules. I also don't get your comparison, recombinant DNA techniques and protein synthesis (amino acids) and small molecule synthesis (vitamin E) are completely different fields, and I'm not sure why you're comparing them directly. Disclaimer: I'm a synthetic organic chemist by training.

Second part: All current patents by Monsanto are NOT void, and I am clearly not a patent attorney, but in my estimation, they are creating hybrid genes that DON'T occur naturally to generate a product with higher intrinsic value than the standard strains, and I think they should be able to profit from this. Is it any different from creating a hybrid strain through traditional breeding techniques? In my opinion, no, but I'm not an expert in those areas.

Where the Court ruling comes into play is in cases where companies or research groups would patent genes they discovered that are naturally occurring (and the case in question was Myriad Genetics' patent on BRCA genes for cancer biomarkers) genes and then charging people to analyze or inform them about genes they already possessed. That, again in my opinion, is the natural outcome for this situation. So, if a company actually invents something, they should be able to patent it and profit from it, but just because they discover some protein, enzyme, or gene, I don't think they should be able to.