Comment by CWuestefeld
18 hours ago
You’re not a product that was created by other human beings based on someone else’s IP.
It turns out that's false. We know that genes are patentable; remember back during the Human Genome Project, when there was such a rush to patent them? So genes are IP. (This seems bizarre to me, since they're patenting something that was found just sitting there, but this is what the system says right now.)
Well, two other humans (aka mom and dad) did create me, based on those patentable genes (and most likely including some genes that were, in fact, patented).
I'm not sure what to conclude from all of that, but I do think that it invalidates your argument.
It's a little more complicated, and I would argue that the court got it wrong, but you cannot patent a gene as it exists and rests in nature. You can patent the cDNA (reverse-transcribed mRNA) genetic code after intron removal, which they argue is not a natural thing, but I think they misunderstood the science, really the triviality of the "invention".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Path....