While there are groups pitted against each other like the Hatfields and McCoys, in a bitter rival over some generational, archaic, color coded, heirarchial belief system that has been perpetuated as a form of distractionary socioeconomic propaganda to enrich those who came up with this crafty format of politically campaigning to pass law and policy so they can steal from the very same groups who are carrying the pitch forks and torches, taxpayer dollars are funding the colonial expansion of corporate parental rights through the patent.
Below, I have provided a few snippets to introduce plausible explanations as to why the U.S. Patent and Trademark First Satellite Office is in Detroit, why cloning is the new term for human trafficking, which is in biomedical research, cloning & patents.
Always remember, corporations do not adopt, they acquire ownership of the goods through intellectual property, because they own us right down to the genome, which is legal to conduct biomedical research in other countries, because it always starts with the best interests of the child, because no one cares, unless there revenues are maximized to fund more political campaigns to fund more of human R & D.
Below, I have provided a few snippets to introduce plausible explanations as to why the U.S. Patent and Trademark First Satellite Office is in Detroit, why cloning is the new term for human trafficking, which is in biomedical research, cloning & patents.
Always remember, corporations do not adopt, they acquire ownership of the goods through intellectual property, because they own us right down to the genome, which is legal to conduct biomedical research in other countries, because it always starts with the best interests of the child, because no one cares, unless there revenues are maximized to fund more political campaigns to fund more of human R & D.
Open Research Human Cloning
A gene patent is the exclusive rights to a specific sequence of DNA (a gene) given by a government to the individual, organization, or corporation who claims to have first identified the gene. Once granted a gene patent, the holder of the patent dictates how the gene can be used, in both commercial settings, such as clinical genetic testing, and in noncommercial settings, including research, for 20 years from the date of the patent. Gene patents have often resulted in companies having sole ownership of genetic testing for patented genes.
On June 13, 2013, in the case of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a "product of nature." The Court decided that because nothing new is created when discovering a gene, there is no intellectual property to protect, so patents cannot be granted. Prior to this ruling, more than 4,300 human genes were patented. The Supreme Court's decision invalidated those gene patents, making the genes accessible for research and for commercial genetic testing.
The Supreme Court's ruling did allow that DNA manipulated in a lab is eligible to be patented because DNA sequences altered by humans are not found in nature. The Court specifically mentioned the ability to patent a type of DNA known as complementary DNA (cDNA). This synthetic DNA is produced from the molecule that serves as the instructions for making proteins (called messenger RNA).
April 30, 2018: The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in the appeal on Monday, April 30, 2018. A ruling is expected later this year.
Based on the oral arguments today, we are even more confident the Federal Circuit will affirm the PTAB’s judgment and recognize the contribution of Broad, MIT and Harvard in developing this transformative technology.
STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND ON THE CRISPR PATENT PROCESS
April 30, 2018: The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in the appeal on Monday, April 30, 2018. A ruling is expected later this year.Based on the oral arguments today, we are even more confident the Federal Circuit will affirm the PTAB’s judgment and recognize the contribution of Broad, MIT and Harvard in developing this transformative technology.
As this patent issue is resolved, and as new patents related to important uses of CRISPR are issued to the many institutions, including UCB, we call on UCB and the companies that control its IP to join our ongoing efforts to simplify, share, and open the IP landscape.
United States Court of AppealsREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA, EMMANUELLE CHA... by Beverly Tran on Scribd
SCOTUS Cloning Patent Case: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. by Beverly Tran on Scribd
SCOTUS Cloning Patent Opinion, Scalia Concurrence: ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY ET AL. v. MYRIAD GEN... by Beverly Tran on Scribd
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
