An Anon posted an article a couple of days back where it was said SCotUS allowed DNA to be patented.
This was seen in the light of the China flu vax using mRNA to re-code your DNA. The Anon, or the article posted, implied those shotted would become a product of AZ/Moderna/J&J.
THIS CASE DOES NOT SAY THAT Let's NOT be part of the fear pron industry that is the MSM!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf
What it does say is nearly opposite. {I think TechnoFog (or maybe Q?) posted once that reading footnotes was of highest importance in legal briefs, so DO always read those as well.} It discusses the finding of cDNA where DNA is taken, parts are stripped away and the rest assembled to a non-natural sequence. The company had argued it was a totally new thing since is was not naturally occurring.
Mr Justice Thomas, the smartest guy on the court since his appointment, wrote this opinion. It was 8-1, or 9-0 depending how you slice it, as Scalia dissented in part.
It does say Myriad (isolator of BRCA1 breast cancer gene) used a well-know process to isolate these genes. Had they used a new process, that, in itself, could have been something they could patent. But didn't.
Nor do we consider the patentability of DNA in which the order of the naturally occurring nucleotides has been altered. Scientific alteration of the genetic code presents a different inquiry, and we express no opinion about the application of §101 to such endeavors. We merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not patent eligible under §101 simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material.
So there you are: No Patent For You!
We are not being turned into output product of geneticists.
YET