They meant the actual occurrence of these particular genes in cDNA form in nature.

Yours is the simplistic argument. Yes, the cDNA is 'created' using an artificial process, like copying a book with a photocopier. Copying a book doesn't make you the author, and copying the naturally occurring gene embodied in mRNA into the cDNA form doesn't make you its inventor. Or its discoverer, for that matter, despite the fact that in this case, Myriad was the discoverer of the gene. That discovery was not the rationale offered by the court for their second holding. Their shaky rationale was that Myriad did in fact invent the cDNA form of the gene.

Any nation-state that does no espionage is irresponsible. They all do it. It's a game, and someone on the US side made a poor move.

They didn't steal it; they copied it.

Child labour laws usually prohibit voluntary labour by persons under a certain age (with varying ages, transitional age ranges allowed to work limited hours, etc.).

You have some evidence for the existence of these alleged rules?

Sometimes it's hard not to think Dick had it right in Henry the Sixth.

Mod Parent Funny!!!

There is only one way to be an IP thief: commit the rare act of fraudulently assuming control over someone else's copyright, patent or trademark.

Its an administrative fee and not a rate increase so it doesn't constitute a breach of contract.

Unless the current contract says AT&T can unilaterally increase your consideration so long as they simply call it an "administrative fee", then yes, it does constitute a breach of contract unless you explicitly or implicitly agree to it. And if the contract does allow it, then it's no contract, unless it sets a limit on the 'fee'.

A notice does not become "legal" simply because it was issued by a state agent.

Never attribute to incompetence what can more parsimoniously be explained by greed or malice.

You're new 'round here, aintcha?

You evidently have an optical or neurological deficit that prevents you from modelling your surroundings in 3D as most of us do. I'm sorry for you. But you should trust that we are truthfully reporting that our experiential perspective is 3D. We have no motive for deceiving you. The only points on which you are correct are those related to the problems of representing 3D scenes in 2D, as in painting and doing 3D design on flat screens, and those arise because our natural perspective is 3D, not 2D, so we are forced to project that onto a plane, or interpret and manipulate 2D projections on a screen that are intended to represent 3D scenes.

>These products contain defects in the design, warnings and instructions, which pose a substantial risk of injury and death to children and teenagers.

Too bad the state cannot be sued for libel.