babble: The Mouse is Not For Patenting

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » right brain babble » humanities & science » The Mouse is Not For Patenting

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: The Mouse is Not For Patenting

'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 December 2002 11:09 PM

quote:
OTTAWA - A controversial mouse, genetically modified to make it better suited for cancer research, may not be patented under current Canadian law, the country's top court ruled Thursday.
...
The SCC ruled the mouse itself cannot be patented, but the biochemical process used to modify it may be. The court added that the ruling may disadvantage Canada's biotechnology industry, but Parliament could amend the 19th century Patent Act.
"It creates a hole or a gap in our patent coverage compared to our major trading partners," said Harvard lawyer David Morrow.
BIOTECanada, which represents biotechnology researchers and companies said Thursday the decision is bad news. It said the ruling would see top biotech researchers leave the country because they wouldn't have protection for their ideas.

Squeak.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 December 2002 11:11 PM

Oh, screw the biotech industry and their lackeys in legal firms. I say it's high time the government expropriated the entire biotech sector and started running genetic engineering research for public benefit instead of private benefit.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 05 December 2002 11:43 PM

I know that nobody invented the mouse; these Harvard folks have, though tinkered with the mouse. Does that make the 'Harvard mouse' patentable? Legally, I don't know - if you tinker with an invention, and create something identifiably different, you can (as I understand it) claim a patent. But the mouse was never invented in the first place. And besides - patenting a life form? No. I do not, under any circumstances buy that. But I'm not a lawyer.
Though we all know they operate separately from the laws of nature to begin with - no offence intended to babbler lawyers. You guys are different. Maybe I should claim a patent... shit I'm confused.

From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

The Libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3365

posted 06 December 2002 03:29 AM

FBI..you can patent the gene, particularly if its a desigenr gene ( though the human genome project might allow you to patent normal genes).
you can patent life forms as well, if you make them, they have patented strains of bacteria.

oh and you can patent the process to make the mouse.

From: OK, USA | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged

verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 06 December 2002 03:33 AM

Laws are just rules that people agree to enforce. We could make it illegal to patent anything blue if we wanted to. I'm just concerned that this decision wil be legislated into irrelevance by the corporate schills on Parliament Hill.

From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: