re: #106 lawhawk

Supreme Court is handing down decisions this morning. So far nothing on the DOMA/SSM issues, or affirmative action cases.

There’s been a case on criminal procedure, water rights and state compacts, and a case dealing with patenting of genes/DNA.

That decision holds that natural isolated DNA is not patentable. Synthetic DNA is patentable. The decision was unanimous, with Scalia issuing a concurring opinion and Thomas wrote the majority opinion. If the DNA is a product of nature, then it isn’t patentable. DNA that isn’t the product of nature is patentable.

I will have to look and see what their definition of “synthetic DNA” is. Will be curious how big a wedge in the door that is since subbing out a few amino acids in a DNA sequence can probably make a chain “synthetic” without heavily changing function. And then what happens when a “natural” chain that tests out the same turns up later? A synthetic chain that got into the wild, or a natural chain that just so happens to already exist and match?