Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt
That analogy of the kids isn't really the same as the soybean one.
|
Contracts are irrelevant here. You don't have a contract with A. You make a part on a 3-D printer and sell it to B. You have no relationship to A. And yet you have still violated A's patent.
Same applies to the kids. If the parent's genes are fixed by A's patent, then the kids also owe a royalty payment to A.
Even worse. What happens when cells multiply from your 'fixed' cell. Must you pay A royalties for those newly spawn cells? Yes, according to basic principles of patent law. Those cells contain the intellectual property of A.
Of course, the contract could be written to extend patent rights to your spawned cells and offspring. So now we need a lawyer to negotiate medical treatment.
Or Congress could address this problem by innovating. By establishing new laws to address these new forms of intellectual property. That is what the Constitution created Congress for. Good luck now that so many extremists in Congress want no such protection in the name of no regulations, no government *interfence*, and "we want America to fail".
Without legal changes, human offspring containing the intellectual property of A (repaired genetic mutation) owes royalty payments to A. Any one using that intellectual property (irregardless of any contract) owes A a royalty for using A's intellectual property.
Finally, a major difference between patenting the process by which a gene is fixed verses the actual corrected gene. What exactly is the property that A owns?