|
"(there’s )a major difference between patenting the process by which a gene is fixed verses the actual corrected gene."
Wholly appropriate to patent the process, but not the gene corrected by the process.
And if the process is the protected (intellectual) property, then the kid and grand kids can't be held obligated to pay squat as none uses the process for profit (each benefited from the process, a benefit paid for by the parents...not very different from the benefit I draw from my car, an object chockablock full of proprietary machines and processes...I pay no royalties cause I draw no direct profit from using someone else's intellectual property, or using the physical expression of that intellectual property).
#
"if you are the grandkid, and your body contains some proprietary gene that you never consented to, then how can you be expected to pay for it?"
Indeed!
Let's say the (corrected) gene itself is rendered a property: at what point does patent law trump self-possession?
And: there's a whole whack of issues regarding 'consent' and 'intent' as well.
I think, even with the current antiquated state of patent/copyright law (versus contract law) it's nowhere as cut and dried as you paint it, tw.
And -- again -- it would be interesting to see the company try to reclaim its property from the kid or grand kids who refuse to pay the royalty.
|