I just read through it and the title to this post and to the article are misleading. From what I can tell, the SC ruled that DNA or cDNA (which includes mRNA) CANNOT be patented since the cDNA is identical to naturally-occurring DNA.
"We merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not patent
eligible under §101 simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material."
“Held: A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. Pp. 10–18.”
I'm having trouble getting through it all myself, but just from a quick skim it seems like they wanted a patent for exclusive rights to modify/manufacture. But I guess with a logical leap, once it's in your body their product becomes part of you and then things get murky. And we all know how these sleazebags love to twist and manipulate uncertainty to their advantage.
I've heard an interpretation that basically some billionaire wanted to patent genes, but he wasn't allowed to so he patented synthetic genes. The court ruled in his favor. Apparently there is a plan to alter the codes in people's bodies. And since DNA codes are like computer codes, they are basically able to insert any code/encryption they want into people which could include signatures and random messages such as patents.
This is ridiculous. Although the evil of slavery is everywhere, it's still illegal under law. The company who owns the patent for any medicine doesn't own you if you take it. Fallacious and silly idea.
An actual court document would have been good to pass on to people.
It's at the bottom of the page they linked.
You struggle because it's fictional language. Meant to be interpreted by a judge any way they want him to.
I just read through it and the title to this post and to the article are misleading. From what I can tell, the SC ruled that DNA or cDNA (which includes mRNA) CANNOT be patented since the cDNA is identical to naturally-occurring DNA.
"We merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not patent eligible under §101 simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material."
Page 2:
“Held: A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. Pp. 10–18.”
I'm having trouble getting through it all myself, but just from a quick skim it seems like they wanted a patent for exclusive rights to modify/manufacture. But I guess with a logical leap, once it's in your body their product becomes part of you and then things get murky. And we all know how these sleazebags love to twist and manipulate uncertainty to their advantage.
Ah, OK - thanks!
The link for full court document at bottom of article.
No wonder they are ramming the jab down our throats!
The language of that law is fictional and we can break it.
I've heard an interpretation that basically some billionaire wanted to patent genes, but he wasn't allowed to so he patented synthetic genes. The court ruled in his favor. Apparently there is a plan to alter the codes in people's bodies. And since DNA codes are like computer codes, they are basically able to insert any code/encryption they want into people which could include signatures and random messages such as patents.
This is ridiculous. Although the evil of slavery is everywhere, it's still illegal under law. The company who owns the patent for any medicine doesn't own you if you take it. Fallacious and silly idea.
Not according to the 2013 Supreme Court opinion, and that's what makes it so egregious.
Funny, I don't get my human rights from courts, made up laws, or any other human-made amusement park. Don't play their game.
Did that land in the books 'cus Roberts diddled little kids? Wouldn't doubt it.