|
Author
|
Topic: possible breakthrough against monsanto in SC
|
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 10091
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted April 25, 2013 02:53 PM
  
http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/are-genes-patent able-insiders-review-aclus-supreme-court-argument-gene-patenting this case is about whether the company who discovered the "braca" genes that predispose to breast cancer can PATENT those GENES! a no brainer to me but apparently the patent was given to this company, myriad, and this allows them to charge whatever they please for testing for said genes..."currently more than most people can afford." but interestingly as well the reasoning in the case points out that a patent by definition implies a "signigicant difference from the original organism" which DISCOVERING the gene does not confer. in other words, monsanto's patents imply that their products are SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT than the original, organic plants (and salmon!) while their argument for safety of said creations is that they are NOT significantly different from the real thing. oooh off to find the attorney who will try this!! IP: Logged |
Node
Knowflake Posts: 2278
From: 1,981 mi East of Truth or Consequences NM
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted April 28, 2013 01:52 AM
I'll come back to this in the afternoon....for the moment- 4/25 is DNA day !? wink, winkety, blink, say no more, nudge nudge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_day offtopic: but, I promise to be back ON topic... my #55555 DNA sabian is A TUMULTUOUS LABOUR DEMONSTRATION KEYNOTE: The revolutionary impact of mental concepts upon the collective emotions and desires of man.
I think this case will turn out to be a 2fer.
IP: Logged |
Node
Knowflake Posts: 2278
From: 1,981 mi East of Truth or Consequences NM
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted April 28, 2013 01:23 PM
I am off base with my supposition.There is already precedent for the case of GMO's. If a biological organism, in it's natural state cannot be patented, then the modified version can, as we have seen. The case the USSC is looking at now, concerns human DNA. So all bets are off, and the word is that they will not support patents as pertaining to human DNA. quote:
The 1970s marked the first time when scientists patented methods on their biotechnological inventions with recombinant DNA. It wasn’t until 1980 that patents for whole-scale living organisms were permitted. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, upheld the first patent on a newly created living organism, a bacterium for digesting crude oil in oil spills. The patent examiner for the United States Patent and Trademark Office had rejected the patent of a living organism, but Chakrabarty appealed. As a rule, raw natural material is generally rejected for patent approval by the USPTO. The Court ruled that as long as the organism is truly "man-made," such as through genetic engineering, then it is patentable. Because the DNA of Chakrabarty's organism was modified, it was patentable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent kat, why do you think the present ruling will be a benefit to those who oppose GMO's in food/seed? Where do you see this going? IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 10091
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted April 28, 2013 02:11 PM
It od just a hunch, but monsanto et al have been selling gmo's as basicallu no different than the real thing. The patent comes from the opposite angle. A clever argument could destroy their sales pitch (not necessarily the validation of their patents, but avhieving the same purpose by killing credibility). And yes i know they have little credibility with a lot of us, but thr general public seems still unfazed by guzzling this stuff. In some quarters it is still seen as the saviour of starving masses!Of course this is possibly wishful thinking on my part but it seems a potential road in to a legal argument... IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
