Something has recently occurred to me. There are many reasons it should not be legal to patent "Genetic Inventions". But I recently thought of a serious issue which further compounds the legal AND moral aspects: What the hell do you do when plants/animals/people naturally,and accidentally evolve the same exact genetic make-up as a patented genome? The likelihood of this happening is astronomical. However, for arguments sake, as a thought experiment, what if a strain of corn mutates and ends up matching the structure of of patented genome. Suddenly, even though that plant was never created by the owning party, they now have the right to lay claim to that plant? Should the "owning party" be able to sue someone who finds themselves possessed of a naturally occurring copy of that genome? If I were to patent a custom human genome, would I own a person who was accidentally born with the same genome? Should I be able to sue them for hi-jacking my genome, even if it was an accident? No. That would be bullshit. Again, this is purely hypothetical, and would likely never happen in the case of human beings at least, in part due to the very way genetics work. However, it still points out an issue: Genetics evolve. So, should anyone have a right to restrict the growth of an independent genome, especially one growing in nature, because they want to own a specific set of possibilities/combinations which can, again, technically occur naturally in nature?
If GPU's grew in the wild, should Nvidia have a right to patent a design for one which may accidentally be replicated by nature all on it's lonesome?
Put another way: Should we be allowed to patent a certain combination of dice rolls?
Can I sit down and create a Excel spreadsheet detailing 100 rolls of dice, and patent that particular set of rolls? Hell...I could patent "Snake Eyes" and really shove it to some degenerate gamblers out there couldn't I?! "DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200."
I could sue the pants off every casino in existence, or at least collect licensing fees for my personally owned combinations. That possibility seems crazy to me in this TE, so why shouldn't it be considered insane to do with genetics?
Then again, maybe they can create unnaturally occurring genetic markers that specifically "demarcate" ones "property".
Any genome without these markers would be fair game? Obviously numerous markers would need to be created to account for accidental mutation of a single marker so it's unrecognizable. But what if a plant/animal got into the wild and mated, creating descendants which lose the markers but maintain the benefits? Maybe the genetics would still have tell-tale signs despite the obscured markers? So there are still possibly issues?