|
| Authored by: eric76 on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
In creating and passing the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, Congress
clearly considered the possibility of patenting seeds and decided not to do so.
Instead, they created something like a patent for seeds but that guaranteed
certain rights for farmers and for researchers.
It was the Supreme Court who extended patents to cover sexually reproducing
plants.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 02:09 AM EDT |
Eh, I'm not ready to jettison patents for medicine (you have a problem with
people having any incentive to produce something that everyone can copy almost
instantly, and another with the fact that they are needed for the health of
people).
Patents on machines can stay also.
Software/business method/genetic patents need to take a hike ASAP.
For the others, the term needs to be strongly curtailed given the current pace
of technology advancement. No more than 5 years.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 02:34 AM EDT |
Based on my experience, there are patents that should never have been granted
and there are patents that should; this is a common failure of many patent
offices.
The basic requirements to a patent are (very short form):
a) Patentable
b) it must be novel
c) It must be useful
d) It must be not-obvious (involving an "inventive step")
e) It must be described in a way that it can be realized
To check whether the patent is novel is a cumbersome process, but in (most
cases) doable.
But judgeing whether a patent is useful and non-obvious may be difficult for
somebody not "skilled in the art" (e.g. the patent office); this is
the problem.
J.C. Anker[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 04:08 AM EDT |
IIRC the plant was used by villagers to treat medical problems and the US
monopolised this natural gift.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
