[gruez]

>The difference between patenting a chemical compound is a patentable compound is probably not producing itself naturally without constant human intervention.

So your argument is that if something can self-replicate, it shouldn't be able to be patented? Let's say we invent self-replicating nanobots in the future, should that be not patentable?

[fiblye]

I think it's reasonable to patent the method of producing the nanobots from scratch. But if those things get loose and manage to reproduce on their own, how is the patent enforced? Is it reasonable to patent something that's self-sustaining?

[Hnrobert42]

Plant patents specifically exclude plants that can reproduce asexually, like tubers. Further, it is my understanding that these grapes cannot grow from seed. You have to culture a tissue sample. Granting a 17-year monopoly to the inventor seems like a reasonable trade off if the alternative is that no one would invest the time/money to create this fruit at all.

[undersuit]

If we grant the patent they they get to decide how low our nanobots last... maybe a monthly subscription we can sign up for.