The problem seed manufactures get to enforce useless patents. Step 1, patent junk DNA. Step 2, prevent farmers from using seed banks due to useless patent. Step 3, profit.
This argument is against patenting 'junk' DNA: but European and American patent law both require a patent to have industrial application and to be novel.
So, I find it unlikely that this situation should apply in practice (although it is worrying that it might apply).
And, I don't find it an argument against patenting useful non-junk DNA.
Note: I'm probably on your side, at least in that I dislike implementation of patent law in general.
Comments
The problem seed manufactures get to enforce useless patents. Step 1, patent junk DNA. Step 2, prevent farmers from using seed banks due to useless patent. Step 3, profit.
Net value to society... Nothing.
This argument is against patenting 'junk' DNA: but European and American patent law both require a patent to have industrial application and to be novel.
So, I find it unlikely that this situation should apply in practice (although it is worrying that it might apply). And, I don't find it an argument against patenting useful non-junk DNA.
Note: I'm probably on your side, at least in that I dislike implementation of patent law in general.