This is a genuine and serious point.
Recently the Biofood industry has successfully sued farmers where GM food has been found growing on their fields through pollination due to “copyright infringement”.
It occurs to me that the legalities for pregnancy could perhaps be somewhat similar. As it…
Nice Try. But, accd to what I learned in law school, it would not work.
1. Men did not “create” ir “invent” their own DNA, as one create’s or bioengineers food.. Therefore, it does not, at this time fall under the law as something that is patentable.
2. If patentable, allowing the woman to use your DNA (via intercourse) is an implied license, and the implied license lasts longer than the 18 years that a man is required to support his children. Ex. If the producers of the GM food had planted the bioengeneered plants themselves, in these farmer’s fields, there would be no case, and no lawsuit.
3. Also, if DNA were patentable, the spirit of the law requires some damage, although by law damage is assumed, in the case of a product. Ex. The man does not lose the use of his DNA, by giving some of it to a woman. The existence of another product of a man’s DNA (an illegitimate child) does not limit or infringe on the man;s other products from his DNA (his own children.) People are not in competition in the marketplace as products are, because people are not “products” accd to the law. The basis of the patent laws is to prevent harm to the creator of a product, by having to compete in the marketplace against their own product. Such harm must be proven, or fall under a title that assumes damage. This lack of harm can be explained by the “loophole” in the copyright laws which are similar in spirit to the patent laws. The loophole allows you to make a copy of a CD that you purchase, if the copied CD is for your own private use, and does not compete in the market place against the originals. If you sell or give away the copied product, it is copyright infringement, because the person that you gave the copy to, by assumption, would have bought an original copy of the CD, and the creator would have received money from the sale.
4. A man does not receive royalties from the production of a child. Therefore, the unwanted child cannot take away deserved royalties.
You would have to create a new law to do what you want to do. The existing patent laws would not cover your scenario.
Please do not interpret my answer as anything more than an analysis of your premise. I mean no harm. I only try to explain that the law would not apply.
Lyantha says it all. In the case of a pregnancy, it is no longer “your” DNA, but entirely new DNA. It’s only “your” DNA as long as a pregnancy DOESN’T occur.
And for your premise to gel completely, the farmer would have to INTENTIONALLY “deposit” his seed in the other farmer”s field, only to turn around and sue for compensation.
I look at it this way. If the guy can prove that he tried to prevent unwanted pregnancy by taking the appropriate measures (and this does NOT mean simply asking “Are you on the pill?”), and the woman sabotages this to get herself pregnant, then the man should be able to walk away. He obviously didn’t want children, and he acted appropriately. But if someone leaves contraception in the hands of another, or doesn’t take appropriate measures, they are acting negligently.
And that goes for BOTH. Women should never leave contraception solely in the hands of the man, and vice versa. If pregnancy is undesired, take matters into your own hands.
the baby would have its own dna lol
the key here is that he has wittingly donated his dna, it would be a different matter entirely if for example a woman salvaged the material from a used condom (which if i am not mistaken has happened). if the farmer can present records for his seed purchases then i don’t see how he can be held responsible for such colonization unless he was seen capturing bee’s from the field of the gm crop and then later releasing them in his own field. how could a gentleman later prove that he didn’t provide his dna willingly? it might be best if he could establish a pattern in his past relations rather than a copyright.
it seems to me a very strong argument for self responsibility. the pill for men is on the horizon.
I doubt there would be a market for patented DNA. Who would want children with a man who was so either so mistrusting of women that he’d take this kind of step and/or so promiscuous that he’d need an extreme protection like this?
If guys would get back to picking out their girlfriends/wives based more on character traits than physical traits there would be less need for unwanted pregnancy paranoia in the male population. Know who you’re sleeping with!
And how exactly would their copyrighting their DNA help? Would a guy actually sue the woman he slept with if she decides not to abort the baby and to carry it to term? Would she have to pay him royalties any time she takes the baby out in public? And with the farmer analogy, who exactly would the farmer be? If the guy doesn’t want his “patented seed” being “cultivated” on someone else’s land, maybe he should take responsibility for it not being cultivated by wearing a “condom”?
We all need to take care. But I agree with the notion that allocating most of the blame to men (as people on the left and right often like to do) is asinine and insulting. Not just to men but also to women because it assumes women are helpless child-like creatures who just give in to men’s beastly desire to make them pregnant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most men I know are not desperately seeking to make anybody pregnant, putting it mildly. Quite the contrary in fact.
The unwittingly patented seed is not the same as the consensual ejaculation. For that to be the case the owner of the patented seed would have to have put it in the other farmer’s field himself.
I wouldn’t want another preposterous layer of pseudo-law on top of the mass of already idiotic laws. When the world finds itself in a morass of sue-counter-sue it’s time to look at overthrowing the political order and removing the rotten elements.
A man should use a condom and spermicide if he doesn’t want to impregnate a woman. I watched too many Maury Povich’s to know that some women don’t know who the baby’s father is. They’ve ran DNA on ten guys once and none were the father. Do you know that if a man signs his name on a birth cerificate and finds out latet his woman was a ho and the child belonged to someone else, your’re still liable for child support? Kinda sucky, huh? DNA tests should be affordable and utilized. Momma’s baby, daddy’s maybe…
Well, first, copyrights and patents are different things. You can’t patent something and then sue for copyright infringement.
A patent is granted for a unique invention. You have exclusive rights to market it for many years, in return for publishing the technology. This encourages invention and reward, while insuring technology ultimately gets distributed. I don’t see how your DNA would qualify.
You could, in theory, “copyright” your DNA, but really, how is your DNA going to get distributed unless you distribute it yourself? If you give it to a woman, then you have “published” it, I guess, and can’t complain about the end product.
It’s better to seek “trade secret” protection. Only give it to trusted partners under arrangements you both agree with.
It’s a nice idea, but it’s flawed. No female should get your DNA unless you “publish” it to her. I appreciate the ingenuity though.