Crazy crazy crazy

@jond did you read the Supreme Court Decision? Or are you just offering your intuitive insight?
what part of this is crap? Please Elaborate.  Just wishing it to be crap does not work, legally speaking.  

"cDNA does not present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments. As already explained, creation of a cDNA sequence from mRNA results in an exons-only molecule that is not naturally occurring.8 Petitioners concede that cDNA differs from natural DNA in that “the non-coding regions have

been removed.” Brief for Petitioners 49. They nevertheless argue that cDNA is not patent eligible because “[t]he nucleotide sequence of cDNA is dictated by nature, not by the lab technician.” Id., at 51. That may be so, but the lab technician unquestionably creates something new when cDNA is made. cDNA retains the naturally occurring exons of DNA, but it is distinct from the DNA from which it was derived. As a result, cDNA is not a “product of nature” and is patent eligible under §101, except insofar as very short series of DNA may have no intervening introns to remove when creating cDNA. In that situation, a short strand of cDNA may be indistinguishable from natural DNA."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf

avsjerry, I think Mr Jones has altogether left the building…

Yeah attack my character. I have a supreme court decision, cited, quoted, linked. And the only thing you guys can do is attack the messenger.
I didn’t write this legal opinion, I don’t agree with it, I didn’t argue it, but this is what your supreme court has decided.
The same Supreme court the lot of you were saying can forcibly inject me with this concoction that I lost my job for refusing.
Again, what part of this decision is not clear to you?
@pesky_wabbit

Time for one of the Moderation team of this AUDIO RELATED forum to shut this thread down, It was not methinks in the mind of the OP to create such a divisive , polarising and in parts toxic thread that it has morphed into.