Why is patenting a natural virus legal?

@metal-brain said
Prove it. Copy and paste the relevant excerpts.

This is your thread. What patent are you referring to?

@wildgrass said
This is your thread. What patent are you referring to?

I gave examples. Can't you read?
Are you just too lazy to look them up yourself?
What is your problem?

@wildgrass said
Can you post the relevant patent info? This probably should have been in the OP no?

Let me guess, you were too lazy to watch this video I posted in my OP.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/4u7rt61YeGox/

What is your problem? Are you afraid of watching it? Are you pretending it doesn't contain the relevant info so you can obfuscate and play stupid?

@metal-brain said
Let me guess, you were too lazy to watch this video I posted in my OP.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/4u7rt61YeGox/

What is your problem? Are you afraid of watching it? Are you pretending it doesn't contain the relevant info so you can obfuscate and play stupid?

I'm not interested in the propaganda video. Patents have numbers and are public record. What is the patent number you have an issue with?

@metal-brain said
I gave examples. Can't you read?
Are you just too lazy to look them up yourself?
What is your problem?

Obviously there are lots of patents, but your OP referred to only one of them. Which one is it?

@wildgrass said
Obviously there are lots of patents, but your OP referred to only one of them. Which one is it?

See the post I wrote about the ebola patent. There are more than one.
If you were not too lazy to read all of my posts you would know that.

Are you just too lazy to look them up yourself?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ebola+patent&t=hd&va=u&ia=web

@metal-brain said
See the post I wrote about the ebola patent. There are more than one.
If you were not too lazy to read all of my posts you would know that.

Are you just too lazy to look them up yourself?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ebola+patent&t=hd&va=u&ia=web

Is your question regarding SARS2 or Ebola? If you're referring to the SARS patent that Ponderable posted, #9,334,543 did not patent a virus, they patented a detection method.

In the Ebola patent, as far as I can tell they patented the sequence but not the virus itself. So if you are using their sequence (which they discovered) to design drugs then you may run into issues. It seems like you could just get around this by doing your own sequencing though. The famous example of the BRCA breast cancer gene is certainly relevant and mentioned in your article. This patent was for a cancer diagnostic test that was ultimately struck down by SCOTUS.

If you're not referring to that patent, then please post the relevant information. There are lots of patents and we don't know what specific one you're on about.

@wildgrass said
Is your question regarding SARS2 or Ebola? If you're referring to the SARS patent that Ponderable posted, #9,334,543 did not patent a virus, they patented a detection method.

In the Ebola patent, as far as I can tell they patented the sequence but not the virus itself. So if you are using their sequence (which they discovered) to design drugs then you may run into issues ...[text shortened]... relevant information. There are lots of patents and we don't know what specific one you're on about.

I know that, but why allow a patent at all? Like you said, just sequence it yourself. They didn't discover the sequence. We all know it is there. That is like discovering your shoes that you have always known were on your feet by simply observing them.

Designing a drug based on a sequence should not be wrong. Nobody designed the sequence unless it is man made. Besides, how can you prove how I obtained the sequence? Better yet, why should it matter if the sequence is natural and doesn't change?

You can print this message on a printer. Is that a discovery? I don't think so. Reading a sequence of letters that form words is an observation, not a discovery.

What is the reasoning for patenting an observation anybody can make? To deny observation to others? How does that make any sense?

@metal-brain said
I know that, but why allow a patent at all? Like you said, just sequence it yourself. They didn't discover the sequence. We all know it is there. That is like discovering your shoes that you have always known were on your feet by simply observing them.

Designing a drug based on a sequence should not be wrong. Nobody designed the sequence unless it is man made. Besides, ...[text shortened]... enting an observation anybody can make? To deny observation to others? How does that make any sense?

Well it's more than your simple observation of a shoe since these are generally a first-of-its-kind sort of patent (e.g. If the shoe were never invented but simply appeared one day). This idea of whether patent filings are worthwhile is a common issue. Many if not most are pointless. Small companies or private inventors have to do the math on whether the patent filing paperwork is worth the hassle, but big companies just patent ev-e-ry-thing.

If you are interested in the topic and want to get into the weeds, you should look at the legal fight over the BRCA gene test. Or the current and ongoing fight over CRISPR/Cas9. Similar to your examples, these fights were over naturally-found sequences that had enormous human health implications. Can another company come in and change one amino acid of the Cas9 protein to get around a $1 billion patent dispute?

@wildgrass said
Well it's more than your simple observation of a shoe since these are generally a first-of-its-kind sort of patent (e.g. If the shoe were never invented but simply appeared one day). This idea of whether patent filings are worthwhile is a common issue. Many if not most are pointless. Small companies or private inventors have to do the math on whether the patent filing paper ...[text shortened]... any come in and change one amino acid of the Cas9 protein to get around a $1 billion patent dispute?

I am questioning the legality of the patent. I suspect the legality of it is questionable based on past SCOTUS rulings.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf

@metal-brain said
I am questioning the legality of the patent. I suspect the legality of it is questionable based on past SCOTUS rulings.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf

What patent?

@wildgrass said
What patent?

Start with this one.

https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2741523A1/en

@metal-brain said
Start with this one.

https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2741523A1/en

That's about the Ebola sequence. I'm not sure if that would withstand a legal challenge or would just be worked around by any company interested in product development. But your posts allude to a SARS patent described in Plandemic. Does that patent exist? What is the patent number?

@wildgrass said
That's about the Ebola sequence. I'm not sure if that would withstand a legal challenge or would just be worked around by any company interested in product development. But your posts allude to a SARS patent described in Plandemic. Does that patent exist? What is the patent number?

I gave you what you asked for, patent number and all. It is a natural virus patent.

Ebola is a natural virus. Notice the title of this thread.
What is your problem?

@metal-brain said
I gave you what you asked for, patent number and all. It is a natural virus patent.

Ebola is a natural virus. Notice the title of this thread.
What is your problem?

I watched Plandemic 2 and it claims the SARS2 virus patent is illegal because natural organisms cannot be patented by law.

What patent are they referring to in Plandemic 2?