|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
The case of the drug company patenting a human gene was very carefully laid out
as the patent only applied when the gene was removed from its natural setting.
Here we have the Supreme Court taking the position that gene patents apply
everywhere.
Are we in trouble yet?
--
Bondfire
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mcinsand on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
I strongly disagree with the ruling, since reproduction is simply what the
resulting organism does as a matter of going about it's function. However, what
happens when farmers' seeds become contaminated. Bees don't know one field from
another, and I don't know what sort of controls are in place to keep batches of
seeds from becoming mixed. Especially with respect to bees, preventing
cross-pollination seems to be out of a farmer's control. As for the other
methods, how far does the farmer have to go in order to show that the farmer has
met the legal burden to prevent generation of new, unpaid seeds?
Again, I disagree with the ruling, and another reason is to think of the farmers
that end up with modified genes in their soybean seed pool... despite making no
known or intentional effort to get those genes into said pool. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
Supreme Court Rules For Monsanto In Patent
Case
The justices unanimously rejected the farmer's argument
that cheap soybeans he bought from a grain elevator are not covered by the
Monsanto patents, even though most of them also were genetically modified to
resist the company's Roundup herbicide.
While Monsanto won this case, the
court refused to make a sweeping decision that would cover other
self-replicating technologies like DNA molecules and nanotechnologies, leaving
that for another day. Businesses and researchers had been closely watching this
case in hopes of getting guidance on patents, but Justice Elena Kagan said the
court's holding Monday only "addresses the situation before us." [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
