>From the Now I've Seen Everything Dept:
"Maxygen's scientists and lawyers are proposing [to] encode the DNA
sequences as MP3s or other music files and then copyright these genetic
'tunes'....As the 'authors' of these DNA-based songs, Maxygen could, in
theory, control the rights to the compositions for 95 years or more--as
opposed to the 17 years given under current patent law."
here's something that i'm not quite snagging: wouldn't that mean, that they
would have the copyright to the sequence AS A SONG? what i'm trying to say
is that from what i'm reading, is that they're assuming that if they encode
the sequence as a song, that they have the copyright over its entire
existence. But what *I'm* assuming is that they're probably wrong, and that
they would merely have the copyright of its existence as a song. Kinda like
how you can take a picture, scan it, and it you can turn that information
into an actual song sequence. But that doesn't mean you'd own the mona
lisa.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
