On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 4:31 PM Cathal Garvey <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
If you are buying from them, then the conditions are probably stipulated by some click-through contract. In which case it might not be patent or copyright law, but contract law.
and there's a chance it's both, or someone could have a patent but the people who you bought from are licensing from the patent-holders and enforcing certain restrictions on you through an MTA (material transfer agreement) or similar.
In any case, it seems that patent law is the dominant law of DNA, disgusting as that is. Copyright is of dubious application as it does not cover "facts", but the precedence of copyright applying to computer code *could* be argued to extend cover to human-created DNA sequences, which is the position I and others would take, as it allows us to also apply copyleft.
Yes but then the question becomes: Is something like a fluorescent protein coding sequence really a human-created sequence if it's a slightly modified naturally discovered sequence? Was the modification a creative work or was it arrived at completely programmatically? (e.g. creating a bunch of localized mutations, measuring which resulted in improved/changed light output and picking the best ones).
--
marc/juul
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAL4ejvTuWGAjDpOO01MYnXVwGEQQMd3osL3xjh4B6r8UzR70mQ%40mail.gmail.com.
0 comments:
Post a Comment