[ronaldx]

>My concern is allowing people to patent biochemistry/DNA sequences, which is clearly bad.

I was thinking about this earlier but I concluded that it was morally no different than any other form of patent - and modestly comparible to patents on new drugs (or software, indeed).

For example - the protection afforded by patents on new drugs is said to justify the amount spent by the pharmaceutical industry on R&D/drug discovery.

Why is the argument different for seeds/DNA sequences, or any other invention that benefits humanity, if it is?

[Retric]

The problem seed manufactures get to enforce useless patents. Step 1, patent junk DNA. Step 2, prevent farmers from using seed banks due to useless patent. Step 3, profit.

Net value to society... Nothing.

[ronaldx]

This argument is against patenting 'junk' DNA: but European and American patent law both require a patent to have industrial application and to be novel.

So, I find it unlikely that this situation should apply in practice (although it is worrying that it might apply). And, I don't find it an argument against patenting useful non-junk DNA.

Note: I'm probably on your side, at least in that I dislike implementation of patent law in general.