SUPREME COURT THROWS OUT PATENTS ON SOME HUMAN GENES
Well, every now and then something happens that makes you suspect that sanity might be threatening to break out all over the world if it were not for the indefatigable efforts of oligarchs and elitists in large banks preventing it from happening. After all, if it did, people would wise up to their scam and they'd be out of business, and most likely in a lot more trouble than that. But we can all breathe easier when the places where sanity breaks out are such unlikely swamps of stupidity as the US Supreme Court, the same group of intellectual and moral giants as gave us (that is, the U.S.A.) the Dred Scott decision declaring Black people to be only 3/5 of a person, unborn infants no persons at all, and corporations fully endowed moral and rational persons (go figure).
Well, now there's this:
I had to literally read this twice: the Supreme (Nuthouse) Court did what?!? Say that again!?!? Where were Bonzanto's Lawyers!?!?
"In 2010, a federal judge ruled that genes cannot be patented. U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet said he invalidated the patents because DNA's existence in an isolated form does not alter the fundamental quality of DNA as it exists in the body nor the information it encodes.
"But last year, a divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington that handles patent cases reversed Sweet's ruling. The appeals court said genes can be patented because the isolated DNA has a "markedly different chemical structure" from DNA within the body.
"The Supreme Court threw out that decision, and sent the case back to the lower courts for rehearing. The high court said it sent the case back for rehearing because of its decision in another case last week saying that the laws of nature are unpatentable."
Ahhh....so that's the scam! Laws of nature are unpatentable, so, go tinker with the DNA some more, make it completely unrecognizable and unreproducible in nature, and then maybe you've got a case. In the meantime, we, in our stalwart uprightness and clarity of the moral vision we first enshrined in Dred Scott, are not going to come to any real decision at all and send the case back to you to get it right this time.
....Then we'll give your patent, and the more monstrous your creation, the better.
The sad thing is, they might try to create...oh, who knows, another Nancy Pelosi (I've never thought that smile could be anything less than the most egregious example of genetic engineering gone wrong).
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.