decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Sorry, | 108 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Exactly!
Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 08:24 AM EST
The genes are prior art, although I could see patenting the means for
transplanting those genes from one organism to another. However, no-one is
making any new genes, so the genes themselves are prior art.

mc

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

They didn't invent the bean in the first place, so their tech, is OBVIOUS.
Authored by: albert on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 12:57 PM EST
Monsantos 'Roundup' gene was found in the sludge ponds of its Roundup
manufacturing facility. Nature did what they couldn't do. So they spliced one
natural gene into a bunch of other natural genes. This should not be patentable.
See any parallels with software patents?

Synthetic genes don't occur in nature. They could be unique and non-obvious.
They could be patentable. Offspring of GM plants could completely take over a
species. This is dangerous. The history of science is littered with the remains
of ideas developed and implemented without regard for the consequences. $adly,
$cience $till operates under this delusion: throw it at the wall and see if it
sticks. Look at the _known_ side effects of the drugs marketed on TV. Some can
lead to death. Would you trust your life with these? It amazes me.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sorry,
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 05:38 PM EST
but this case isn't about the validity of the patent, altho' I think
most of us here agree that it looks dodgy. Bowman accepts
the patent is valid because he signed an agreement that it was.
Bowman's complaint is that Monsanto are using that agreement
as a waiver of patent exhaustion, which he claims is illegal.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )