Schneier on Security

Wasn't there a Sci-Fi story that used DNA watermarks?

Well, there's a "patent code" in an engineered prokaryote in _Memory_ by Lois McMaster Bujold...

I predict that many Gene patents will be ruled invalide. (Not all) soon. Also a lot of countries are writing in extra exceptions for use of unlicenced patents... So this my not be very economic.

UFOs are real, there are free energy technologies, and there is a secret government covering it all up.

For more info: http://www.myspace.com/disclosurewitness6

Isn't the point of patents that the inventor (or patent holder) *gives information about the invention to the public*; in exchange he/she gets a temporary monopoly?
Then why would they want to "encrypt" the genes?

Horizontal gene transfer can cause a lot of problems with lawyers, by moving the genes in question between species and causing false positives.

See details eg. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Is it just me that finds it rather disturbing that somebody is allowed to patent living organisms in the states?

I wonder how long it takes before the first patented human shows up. And if (s)he will have any rights to reproduce...

What's next? DRM on Evolution (tm). I wonder if they are counting on Intelligent Design. :-P

(couldn't resist the puns)

@Damgaard:

The stated goal is not to encrypt the gene, but to encrypt within the gene a water mark, making it possible to differentiate a "naturally occurring" version of a gene from an equivalent patented version. It's about as sensible as the DRM version, blocking normal people from using an unauthorized version of the gene (since they will ostensibly just propagate the plant), yet do nothing against commercial piraters who will simply insert the gene sequence without the watermark in the lab.

Always going against the little guy.

On top of that, if there exists a "natural version", wouldn't that be prior art? And if nature evolves an equivalent version, is nature going to be sued for patent violation? How can you distinguish between "prior art" and "later art" in genes - is nature going to be required to publish in journals now to keep her rights?

Isn't patenting genes about as absurd as logically possible? How about patenting frequencies?

With a genetically engineered human, if they're covered by patents, I guess they could be liable for patent infringment if they reproduced before the patent expired. Is it just coincidence that patents expire very close to the amount of time it takes an embryo to become an adult? Or did They(tm) plan it that way?

On a more serious note, what is covered by these patents is the mechanism of (say) growing corn with vitamin A in it by means of inserting such and such a gene. Patents expire, this sort of stuff does require heavy R&D, I don't have much problem with it. It's patents for little silly obvious stuff that bothers me.

oh great, how when the GMO agricrop jumps the fence and runs wild the neighboring farmers aren't just victims of genetic pollution they get sued for IP theft!

@Kevin, problem with, say, Vit A enhanced corn is when it gets loose before the side effects (program flaws, analogous to software bugs) are discovered.

Base concept is interesting, but raises yet another concern about potential side effects, mutation paths, etc.

Tinkering with genetics is getting really close to trespassing on God's turf. Is that something we want fallible man to be doing, especially solely for economic gain?

@UNTER: "How can you distinguish between "prior art" and "later art" in genes"

Presumably with a Genetic WaterMark. I imagine that the argument would be very similar to the one for fingerprint-ID: "The chances of an otherwise-useless genetic sequence of this length being generated randomly is one in a gazillion..."

if you have an article about watermarking with RSA Algorithm for secure web page. please publish? or tell me about.