The Science of Communicating & Marketing Your Business

A few thoughts. First, synthetic plant life is already the subject of many patents, protecting the various manipulations of plant life, not the discovery of new plant life. Arguably, these are the first patented synthetic life forms.

Somewhere along the lines, various inventors invented the first devices that operated on electricity. Any of those individuals that recognized then how profoundly life would be transformed by electronics would have been worried that these first inventors would have patented and owned all electronic devices. But patents expire and time spent worrying is time wasted.

Karl Benz invented a combustion engine in 1879, the first gasoline powered automobile in 1886, and a few other automotive wonders in the late 1800s, but how many years passed between the invention of that automobile and commercial acceptance? Under current US law, he'd have owned the first two patents until somewhere around 1898 and 1905, well before the automobile became commercially accepted.

The prospect of the first person to patent synthetic human life and owning patent rights that are extremely broad and scope sounds powerful, and maybe it is, but the power is fleeting. Medical device patents, specifically those that are invasive, are worthless if you haven't received FDA approval half way through the life of the patent. How many years will pass between the filing of a patent on synthetic human life and government approval of sale of the same? Then commercial acceptance of the same? Part of the financial risk of leading a new industry is that commercial acceptance is slow. That first patenter of synthetic life may be a trailblazer, but he/she is unlikely to reap significant monetary reward for that patent.

"That first patenter of synthetic life may be a trailblazer, but he/she is unlikely to reap significant monetary reward for that patent."
Now you tell me? Now???
All kidding aside, thanks for the insight. You also wrote "How many years will pass between the filing of a patent on synthetic human life and government approval of sale of the same? Then commercial acceptance of the same?" My concern is with the "government approval of sale" part. This seems too close to slavery for me to be comfortable with it. I know that "slavery" comes and goes with the vagaries of society's needs. The demise of slave work forces had more to due with the rise of machines (extremely cheap labor, low maintenance costs) than the morality of "slavery". However, when replacing a human becomes economically on par with replacing a battery? Then I would be concerned.
Thanks for your comment. - Joseph

Shows you from what different angles we are approaching this subjection. It hadn't occurred to me that the synthetic life you were proposing would be sentient. I'm not sure (not that I have put much thought into it) what economic value there is in creating sentient synthetic life, when we were born with the ability to create synthetic life in a manner that is far more entertaining than spending time in the lab (my opinion any way). Heck, I've co-created sentient life three times, and its expensive enough to do it the old fashioned way.

The thoughts I had for synthetic life was more toward the non-sentient and, I should mention, biological (e.g., growing replacement parts for those with failing/failed/removed body parts). This thought may have been motivated in part by your Frankenstein reference.

Now that I reread the posting, you may have just as easily meant a non-biological synthetic sentient life (something more akin to HAL or Data).

In either case, I still think there will be a commercial transaction as there always seems to be with anything man-made. Maybe the sale is creating a life (like a surrogate mother) as opposed to selling a created life, but there will be a transaction. Which isn't to say that I think commercial transactions of man-made sentient life is out of the question (akin to your slavery quandry), I just want to say I wasn't (and ain't) broaching that topic.

And the government will need to authorize (or refrain from impeding, which I would consider synonymous) the practice of the science and the allowability of the transaction. As with cloning, abortion or the teaching of evolution in school, there is always a dance to be performed between government, science and religion when man tries to influence the concept of life.

Tex, somewhere in my notes I have some more data on this. Give me a few cycles to find it and I'll leave a note here when I post it. Thanks - Joseph

Howdy,
You can find more about this topic at Genetics, Genetic Non-Descrimination Act, and Responding to Tex's Comment. Enjoy - Joseph