|
|
|
|
|
by dfleming
5298 days ago
|
|
How on earth is there not prior art (I think that's the term I want) for the functioning of a small part of the human metabolism? It seems to me rather obvious that the researcher, her/his ancestors, friends, you, and me all other humans constitute prior art to that patent. I struggle with similar questions when I see articles on how companies are patenting specific DNA sequences. I guess my problem boils down to this. Isn't there a difference between a discovery and an invention? Logically I think there is. A discovery is a new understanding of an already existing reality while an invention is the creation of something new. On that difference it seems that the latter should be patentable but not the former. But if they truly have the patent claimed by the article, then our system allows for the patenting of discoveries! How bizarre.
Are there other fields where discoveries are patentable. (Should Einstein have patented his theory of general relativity or E=mc^2?) If Prometheus Labs had created a machine that measured and calculated the needed dosage change in a new and innovative way I could see a patent being granted, but not on this. Could someone who has patent experience/expertise way in and help me here? |
|