Seed Patents

[wy_white_wolf]

I wonder how/if this will affect Seed Patenting:

That decision essentially rules patents on unaltered genes of humans and other organisms dead, unless the decision is appealed or overturned in this case or another by another federal court or the Supreme Court. There will be ample opportunity for that to occur -- the ruling is expected to lead to many genome patent holders to be taken to court in an effort to revoke their ownership of genes of humans and other creatures.

http://www.dailytech.com/Federal+Cou...ticle18033.htm

[MELOC]

that is a good thing. no one deserves to hold a patent on human genes and deny, on let's say breast cancer, the right to use the genes for research.

further more, no one should be able to claim ownership of heirloom plants that have no proven development by anyone in particular just because they were the first one to raid an archive and submit a patent. no one should have a right to tell me i cannot save seed or distribute seed from plants that have been around for such a long time and have no proven breeder.

[Wolf mom]

Post deleted by me.

[Windy in Kansas]

I agree that it is a good thing. As I see it if someone had patented unaltered seeds that someone else wanted to alter for a new crop or form they would have to secure rights to them before that could happen. Something that has been unaltered and been around for perhaps a thousand years should not be made exclusive to one individual or firm.

[10ecn]

Some lawyer in Australia patented the wheel, just to show that it could done. The possibilities are endless, and frightening. What happens when somebody decides to patent fire, or photosynthesis, or whatever else?

[Harry Chickpea]

Bravo. Should have been done at the beginning. Hopefully it will carry over to seed patents and cut the legs off the sleeze elements of corporate agriculture.

[Windy in Kansas]

Originally Posted by Harry Chickpea

Hopefully it will carry over to seed patents and cut the legs off the sleeze elements of corporate agriculture.

Wouldn't seeds be covered under organisms? I would certainly think so. You did read the word "UNALTERED" in the text didn't you? I see no reason why altered ones shouldn't be patented, but no for unaltered ones.

[Harry Chickpea]

The ruling, as cited in the OP, was just on human genes and related patents
"It ruled that "organisms" made from human DNA were patentable if they were "man-made" -- produced by human processes. This was interpreted, over time, to mean that genes of organisms could be patented, granting the holder exclusive ownership of that gene."

As much as many people hate the ACLU, it is vital in pursuing cases like the one cited. For me, here is the bottom line - the Good Lord and our parents and ancestors created our genes. Genentech and other companies were not even in existence when these genes first occurred and they have no more right to them than a kid who finds a rock on your land owns that rock.

Those companies took samples of genetic material and once they found something that hadn't been patented yet, they struck off a patent - literally making the genes that are in your own body NOT yours to do with as you wish, but the intellectual property of the company owning the patent.

The concept is so vile, so nasty, so egregiously wrong that it should have been immediately struck down. It wasn't, because companies snookered regulators and politicians into believing that no life-saving research would ever be done if there wasn't the financial reward of owning the genes. That was a lie and an attempt to flip research over from Universities and science centers into the private sector, where great gobs of filthy money could be made off the blood of you and your relatives.

The same concept should apply to heirloom seeds, but no one will know for sure until case law is formed to make that ruling. Again, that is why there have to be advocates like the ACLU, even though those advocates may also reach too far in other areas.

One set of players that clearly has ignored the problem is the churches. By any stretch, it is in the interest of churches to deny private ownership of any part of humanity or God-created plants and animals. If they don't do that now, what happens when a company decides it can legally take out a patent on the soul? The churches dropped the ball on this, big time.

Also, until clear precedent is available on all levels, companies may STILL try to defend the illegal and immoral patents and simply try to win by throwing money at the case until the litigant goes bankrupt or runs away.

ALL of this would not be needed if our politicians really worked for the people and followed the Constitution. Instead, they mass behind party lines and fight each other, ignore the Constitution and history, and work for those who can donate the most money to their campaigns.

Other than that, everything is fine.

[MattPA]

Key word and the only word that means diddly is 'UNALTERED'. In other words, Roundup 1 and 2 seeds remain the intellectual property of its company.

[VERN in IL]

Basically these seed companies are really using patents to CORNER THE MARKETS.

[Windy in Kansas]

Originally Posted by VERN in IL

Basically these seed companies are really using patents to CORNER THE MARKETS.

Ah, but those companies you speak of are creating a product or crop so unique that they are making a new market that did not exist before, so why shouldn't the be able to corner it? No one is being forced to buy altered organisms and now that the unaltered ones cannot be patented the ruling protects their right to continuing to buy unaltered ones.

Individuals or other companies certainly have the right to also create a new market via something new and corner their own new market via patent protection. You spend the bucks to create something new and you should be able to recover your costs and be rewarded for your efforts.

Harry you are correct. I only read the quoted statement in the original post and didn't read the linked material. I stand corrected even if the quoted text read unaltered genes of humans and other organisms OTHER ORGANISMS would include plant material in my opinion.

If we think about patents in general and how they compare to these it should make for clear thinking.

We should not be able to patent iron ore--an unaltered material. If however we develop a process and recipe for high carbon, nickle, or whatever steel it is then an altered product and should be patentable.

Same for organism material, unaltered should not be patented just as the court agreed. Altered should be allowed an protected.

Would there ever be any incentive in this world if those lines of thinking were not followed?