|
The part about "naturally occurring" human genes vs synthesised DNA" is going to lead to legal confusion.
To the layman, it may seem clear-cut, but when you get into DNA vs cDNA, retro-viruses,
"normal" vs "mutation" and/or "birth defect" and, animal genes vs human genes, etc.
it gets very murky very quickly.
In reality, this is probably more of a political than a legal (constitutionality) decision.
It satisfies those of us who object to someone patenting "my genes",
and yet saves the companies who have invested in creating lab tests.
And since it is a 9-0 decision, it's going to stand for a long time.
|