Aye, just to add to tag on to this, rrrrr: viruses are pretty promising as vectors for gene therapy and transfection, one of the most basic of experimental techniques when you want to perturb a gene. Check out all the patents on adeno-associated virus
As someone who does not know the politics of this field, I find it surprising that you can patent a naturally occurring virus, rather than your inventions relating to the virus. I suppose it is intended to protect whoever stumps up the money to sequence the genome, but still it seems a bit repugnant. More like the politics of colonization than science: if I saw it first I can stop anyone else coming here. It seems to run counter to the principle that science contributes to, and thrives on access to, the store of human knowledge. I guess what we are dealing with is the blurred boundaries between science, technology and industry.
Well, sequencing is extremely cheap nowadays, and it was also legal up until 2013 to patent whole genomes of organisms. Since then you'd need to either claim a process (i.e. sequencing reverse-transcribed RNA using this specific protocol to diagnose this genetic disease) or engineer a new sequence not found in nature.