

Supreme Court’s Myriad decision is deeply confused over cDNA - carbocation
http://blog.carbocation.com/post/52902698213/supreme-courts-myriad-decision-is-deeply-confused-over

======
aroch
These are exactly the concerns I had[1]...I don't understand why the Court is
under the impression that cDNA is something magical and patent worthy. Its
ubiquitous in Nature and is no different than any other DNA. The Court seems
hung up on the fact that it's "exons only" based on my reading of the Majority
opinion and that somehow makes it unique

_____

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5874506](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5874506)

~~~
carbocation
I agree with you, in particular because of logic similar to that in
JosephBrown's post [1]:

> The justices seemed to argue that removing the introns was the step that
> makes cDNA patentable, but the introns are already removed from an mRNA
> molecule

If we take this decision at face value, then scientists simply have to
decrease reliance on cDNA intermediates. But I worry that we will have to deal
with fallout from analogies to the cDNA logic for decades to come.

1 =
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5874580](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5874580)

~~~
aroch
I do too, especially since I work with mRNA's and cDNA's on an almost daily
basis.

------
come2gether
herein lies the problem with allowing 80+ year olds with no scientific
training to rule on complex scientific questions.

~~~
waterlesscloud
If only they had young clerks working for them.

------
daughart
It seems clear to me that such a confusing and scientifically-confused
decision will not last long. Hopefully this decision paves the way for a more
reasonable standard in a few years. Meaningful modification should be the
standard. Removing introns, which is done naturally, is clearly not such a
modification.

~~~
carbocation
> Meaningful modification should be the standard.

This would have been a much more useful and realistic ruling. They explicitly
don't address meaningful modification (they mention it to say that they
intentionally do not address it), so I suppose we shall see where they stand
on that eventually.

