Robert J. Kasunic

Name: Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence"
Author: Robert J. Kasunic

Summary

“Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence"”, published in 2014, is a work by Robert J. Kasunic. It explores elements such as sequence, authorship and categories.

Quotes from Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence" (Robert J. Kasunic)

Robert J. Kasunic, Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence" (2014)

“ It is of great concern to the Office that neither this critical distinction nor the degree of creative human authorship can be established through the examination of the deposit. The inability of the Office to independently discern new creative authorship suggests that a claim in a DNA sequence may be far better suited for the realm of patent, where a heighted standard of novelty, nonobviousness, and an examination of prior art would be considered, rather than the originality standard of copyright. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert J. Kasunic, Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence" (2014)

“ In the case of a synthetic gene, the specific sequence of nucleotides is the result of some person's choices, but those choices are not made for the purpose of artistic expression. They are made to create a specific gene that produces a "particular polypeptide." Properly understood, the nucleotide sequence of a synthetic gene, inasmuch as it could be conceived as a form of expression at all, is a "form of expression dictated solely by functional considerations." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert J. Kasunic, Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence" (2014)

“ Your alternative argument that the synthetic DNA sequence is analogous to a computer program because the Prancer sequence is comprised of a set of statements or instructions. You argue: "there is nothing in copyright law that would justify treating a set of instructions directed towards a computer any differently than a set of instructions directed towards some other machine capable of receiving and acting upon the instructions, including a biological machine such as a recombinant microorganism." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert J. Kasunic, Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence" (2014)

“ DNA sequences are fundamentally different from computer programs. As you stated, DNA sequences are fixed because "DNA is composed of stable chemical nucleotides." DNA sequences, whether naturally occurring or synthetic, are the result of biology or biological techniques, respectively. Biological creations do not fit within any of the existing categories of authorship. Indeed, the Copyright Office Review Board upheld a similar decision in a reconsideration of a denial of registration for genetically modified plants. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert J. Kasunic, Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence" (2014)

“ Since the present statutory language is substantially the same as the empowering language of the Constitution, a recurring question has been whether the statutory and the constitutional provisions are coextensive. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert J. Kasunic, Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence" (2014)

“ I. DNA falls outside of the categories of copyrightable by Congress
In your argument in support of copyright protection for the Prancer DNA Sequence, you emphasize that this is a human-engineered, synthetic DNA sequence rather than a naturally-occurring DNA sequence. Were this a naturally-occurring DNA sequence that was "discovered" by your client through a process of isolation, the matter would be simply resolved by §102 as further clarified by the Feist decision: "one who discovers a fact is not its 'maker' or 'originator.' The discoverer merely finds and records." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert J. Kasunic, Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence" (2014)

“ Congress added this definition after the CONTU Report to address computer programs, a form of authorship that it had previously suggested fell within the scope of literary works. The 231 codons that make up the Prancer DNA Sequence are not statements or instructions that are "used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result." While an organism may be analogized to a machine, it clearly is not one, and as a result falls outside of the category enumerated in the statute. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Robert J. Kasunic, Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence" (2014)

“ The copies deposited for registration consist of or include reproductions in a language intelligible to human beings. If the first publication was [in] a form (such as machine-readable tape) that cannot be perceived visually or read by humans, something more (such as a print-out of the entire program) must be deposited along with two complete copies of the program as first published. (d) An application for registration is submitted on Form A as a "book." Detailed instructions for registration are included in the application forms. ”

Robert J. Kasunic

Summary

Quotes from Copyright Office letter affirming refusal to register the "Prancer DNA Sequence" (Robert J. Kasunic)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature