Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!hpda!hplabs!ucbvax!BU-CS.BU.EDU!bzs
From: bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Bioproduced nano-computers a/k/a beastie feces
Message-ID: <8710302329.AA22376@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: Fri, 30-Oct-87 18:29:30 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.8710302329.AA22376
Posted: Fri Oct 30 18:29:30 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Nov-87 04:39:11 EST
References: <8710291905.AA06470@mitre.arpa>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 23


>and the cells are sold to a different concern than the one that fabricated
>them, and those cells reproduced when it captivity of their new owner, who
>owns the new cells?  What if the little beasties where only leased?  If
>the leasee owned the baby beasties, can he then sell them and compete
>with the leasor?  As I understand it, there are no legal precedents here
>(There was a patent lawyer at the STEPP meeting.)  What do you think?
>     
>David Subar

I believe I posted a review of an article (from Scientific American if
I remember right) around a year ago to this list about how one of the
Swiss bio-engineering firms was signing their bio-engineered
organisms. Basically they attached a non-functioning allele (is that
the right word?) with a genetic pattern they had copyrighted (I think
in one company's case it actually had a pattern with their initials,
at least roughly.) A genetic signature as it were.

The idea was that it should be detectable if sold by another concern.

Wierd.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University