Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

IP And Genetics: Genetic Copyleft? 110

Posted by jamie from the guns-germs-and-steel dept.
"Suddenly, the free exchange of plant resources is in question as discoveries representing millions of dollars in profits are patented, potentially keeping poor farmers from using them." uncadonna writes "Here's a story (NYT; free reg. req.) about genetic scientists who want to maintain natural genetic diversity in food crops, resorting to defensive patents. Sounds like kindred spirits to me. Wonder if they've ever heard of copyleft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IP and Genetics: Genetic Copyleft? More

IP and Genetics: Genetic Copyleft?

Comments Filter:
  • They won't try to copyright the tomato. They're just going to try and copyright a certain kind of tomato that they created in their laboratory.
    • I love to sit and write code

    • When I get in a programming mode
      Compile and run
      It is so much fun
  • The thought of genetic engineering frankly scares the hell out of me. I don't think that human kind, as a whole, is mature enough for that kind of power over the very building blocks of life itself.

    But we've been doing this for thousands of years, albet with less understanding and cruder tools. And Nature has been doing it for much longer - bacteria swap DNA, and viruses carry chunks of DNA across species.

    The newer technology allows more control over this engineering, with the result that new gene combinations are likely to be rushed into the field before the full impact can assessed. However a few changes to the legal system can help here - every time there's a messup from geneng just slowly torture to death the CEOs of the offending company; then watch how carefully new stuff gets introduced.

  • So you are saying that you have hungry children and starving livestock, eh? Well, as a matter of fact my company has some intellectual property that could be of some use to you. Special plants designed specifically to grow well in this environment. What's that? You've got no money? Well then, I think I'll come back around after you've become a bit more civilized and realized that the only way to make money straight off ideas it to keep those ideas to yourself. Good luck with the harvest!
    --

  • LOL (Score:2)

    by zpengo ( 99887 )
    You're joking right? That's a pretty limited view of capitalism.

  • Re:Terminator seeds (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24, 2000 @09:38AM (#1050684)
    Terminator seeds are a good idea, your devotion to everything GPL had clouded your mind. Sterility is an important part of any genetically enhanced plant. Without it, the enhanced genes can be propigated into the wild. How great would that be if a non-desireable weed type plant cross-breed with an enchanced plant an inherited the genes? Usually the plants are selected for having a gene that makes them resistant to pesticide. The last thing farmers need is genetically enhanced, pesticide resistant weeds in their fields. Terminator seeds are intended to stop genetic disasters, not increase the amount of income for a seed manufacturer. It is just an unfourtonate consequence of the technology.
  • I don't know about copyrights, but Tiffany & Co. copyrighted a certain shade of blue. Tiffany Blue. [tiffany.com]
  • With all the discoveries being made about genetics, it's a shame that the predominating sense of capitalism is preventing people from sharing ideas and furthering if everyone has a piece of the puzzle, but nobody wants to be the first to give it up.

    I don't think it's that no one wants to be first, I do agree that a large part of the delays are due to getting ducks in a row prior to announcing or sharing is in large part due to protecting future profit.

    However there is also a huge political and social impact side with genetic engineering that the general population thinks is just evil. You mention genetic fruit supplements and immediately the discussion turns to Dolly the sheep and cloning humans for body parts and mini-me's. So there is a lot of time, effort and money invested in spin and marketing in a slow and controlled way as to not have a panic that the genetic company that shares first is not viewed as the evil Dr. Moreou(SP?)

  • that's the theory anyway. in practice things don't neccesseraly work out that way. that is why these defensive patents are springing up.
  • replace "copyrighted" with "trademarked" for that sentence to make sense. d'oh.

  • Of Mice and Men (and Corn)... (Score:4)

    by HvidNat ( 148511 ) on Wednesday May 24, 2000 @11:22AM (#1050689)
    I like reading the responses to GM and IP issues on Slashdot, just to get a feel for the public opinion on such things... I'll preface this response with the caveat that I'm a computational biologist and as a result work with many groups involved with most aspects of these issues.

    One thing the article doesn't make entirely clear is the types of patents being issued or how they work in Mexico. In the United States, for example, there is a class of patent specifically related to hybrid plants and animals -- without any form of genetic engineering. Simply discovering or cultivating a new species or subspecies is sufficient to obtain patent rights to it. Most hybrid crops and many popular flowering plants and shrubs fall into this category. (Strangely enough, these "natural" hybrids are quite often quite harmful to the environment and humans; africanized "killer" bees are one good example).

    Contrary to popular belief, companies do not patent genetically modified crops, but rather the use of a transgene (gene transplanted from a different strain or species), the process by which it is used, the system in which it is used (for example, glyphosate anabolism), etc. The notion there being that such are basically chemical process patents.

    Also, patenting existing chemical substances and modifications to same is a time honored tradition as old as the patent process itself. It's not likely to change. This is how we got the dyes in our clothes (the clothes themselves if you've your polyester leisure suit on), the majority of the modern pharmacopia, et cetera. As sad as it is to say, without profit or war as motivators, there would be insufficient motive to develop technology that requires substantial research or development.

    Were we talking about the US, there would be no need to patent information which you published in the public domain for defensive purposes, since doing so eliminates subsequent claims by prior art. I don't know if this is true in Mexico. What the article is describing is the just-in-case scenario whereby things that are of general benefit are released to the public but if there is a significant commercial interest, then the technology can be licensed for profit. It sounds fine except that farmers are not molecular biologists and generally the technology is useless without an implementor (generally a corporation), and the middle-man approach just adds to the cost for subsequent customers.

    Genetically modified seed and hybrid seed are not, contrary to the assertion of one poster, typically more expensive. They are per pound of seed, but typically the enhanced traits generate yields that more than compensate. The higher profitability of growing engineered crops is what keeps farmers planting them (at least outside the thrid world). In some areas, growing GM crops can cost as little as 1/3 as much to produce as regular crops. Over the past few years, the costs of seed has gone down significantly.

    In fact, it's that GM crops are so economical which is the real problem for those opposing GMO's. It's one thing to support conventional or organic farming, but it's very difficult to get farmers to fall in line when it means cutting into their profits and potentially destroying their soil (both organic and conventional farming are extremely destructive, in comparison, due to tillage and chemical use). It also makes it hard for third-world farmers to compete in exports as they often do not have the capital to outlay for seed, and they can't produce as high a grade of crop.

    Now, most seed companies make their hybrid and GMO seed available in third-world countries for little or no cost (though some GMOs are really only advantageous if you make use certain fertilizers, herbicides, etc. also sold by the seed vendor). This too has proven disasterous for the control of distribution of GM seed because many times it is received at no cost and then resold by the farmer. This has been especially true in South America of late.

    Ironically, the uncurbed distribution of GMO seed probably would have been halted by a technology developed by, I think, Pioneer Hi-Bred of France: the so-called "Terminator" technology (which Monsanto got credit for, despite never having licensed it, much less developing it) which renders the GM seed sterile. Initially this was attacked because it was hyped by anti-GM groups as being a threat because it could render the worlds crops sterile by giving birth to sterile offspring :) . It later occurred to everyone that sterile crops don't have any offspring, much less sterile ones. Ultimately, it was seen as a technology that could be used to exploit third-world farmers by forcing them to buy seeds anew each year (which it could be used for -- US and european farmers already do this as a matter of course), and possibly rub out subsistence farmers. It goes without saying that no company wanted their names associated with that and I'm pretty sure the vendor was never able to license the technology.

    Granted, the food may not be harmful to eat, and by all measure so far, GM plants have yet to show any environmental impact (in the US and Europe they've been in wide use for about 20 years; because of blight problems, nearly all US potatos are GM), but it's still a concern for people and is likely to be same for some time. I can't imagine that it will be practical to educate the populous sufficiently that they would have sufficient background to make an informed decision (right now, the vast majority of detractors and supporters of GM technologies have no particular knowledge of the subject save propaganda or paranoia). In that case, I imagine that the technology will take some time to gain general acceptance, but I'm sure it will unless somebody produces some evidence that the risks of GM tech exceeds the benefits (or even exceeds the risk of natural genetic variation).

    Patenting human genes is also an intriguing subject. Obviously you cannot patent a gene without and ascribed function since you need to show utility and a prototype of it's use. What you could attempt to patent would be the methods used for isolating specific genes or products that target the functionality of the gene (to date, many companies have patented collections of gene candidates as parts of a trait/drug target screening process - the "gene" themselves are not in themselves patentable, at least in the US). For example, Taq DNA polymerase (an enzyme from Thermophilus aquaticus used to replicate DNA with high fidelity using a technique called PCR), is the subject of several patents. The gene itself is not patented, because it can't be, but the applications for using it for PCR (and several other uses) is patented. If you want to use Taq for another use, say as a paint additive or cancer cure, then you'd be free to do so (and patent it).

    Also, on the GATTACA front, it should probably be pointed out that there are physical constraints to the human genome that would make it functionally impossible to do that sort of trait expression engineering (you could optimize for a few traits, but the interdepdence of traits on common signals, pathways, etc. precludes a generalized method for specifying aribtrary phenotypes).

  • You may use this thing that I patented, if everything you use it to create also comes under this licence.

    It's a licencing issue. Patented idea/etc. get licenced out for use. If you require as part of the licence agreement that the person licencing will licence everything created using your patent under the same licence, then you have a viral patent. Huzzah! ;)

    (note: no statement is made as to the good/badness of the GPL; even proponents must admit that it is very good at propogating itself, like a virus)
    ---
  • That's the geek's way of saying: "I own your firstborn child!" in a fiendish voice, right?
    • I love to sit and write code

    • When I get in a programming mode
      Compile and run
      It is so much fun
  • Already did, already did, already did, now. No car for 3 years + and oh boo hoo, my life is an absolute shambles - not. As for whether these companies and their billions of dollars of research ought to amount to a hill of (regular, honest, no fish genes, thank you VERY much.) beans, I rather think not. If you pop Little Shop of Horrors into the VCR when it's dinnertime and you're somehow not feeling quite peckish, so be it, but I for one am not impressed by all this "research", or its results, OR, vehemently, the fact that it has been foisted on not only farmers, but the eating public (that's you and me, bub) without so much as a by your leave, or a label (because, you see, we aren't in a position to judge for ourseves what we do and do not wish to eat), so that about sums it up.
  • Actually information in DNA *is* digitally coded. The copying mechanism just is rather error prone.

    ---------------
    Fire Your Boss!
  • True, much of the purely theoretical work does occur in an academic setting, most universities can't hold a candle to the resources present in a commercial biotech company to produce actual product.

    Frankly, there isn't a whole lot of actual product being produced. Just like the Internet craze, biotech company owners generally just make money on the stock market rather than running a profitable business.

    Believe me, if you had the choice between going to work for a high paying biotech company or staying at the university as a grad student for meager wages, where would you end up?

    Hey, I've had that choice and made my decision concerning that already. Perhaps you would have chosen differently.
  • > the patents that are requested for crops are
    > unique genetic combinations developed by the
    > company that is requesting the patent.

    Maybe in some cases... But from what I've seen, these plants are usually transformed with the genes existing in the nature, sometimes even in the same "wild_type" plant (but their expression, or substrate specifity of the enzymes they encode is changed). So, if I'll put herbicide resistance gene isolated from plant A into plant B, isn't that "prior art" ? For me, it is just a derived work from God's (or whoever created plant A) source code...
    Regards,
    kovi

  • Also, companies _do_ share research with university labs. It's not necessarily common, but there is a flow of data between company labs working on proprietary work and university labs working on related projects with the result of both groups getting more work done. The biotech companies get marketable products (which the university labs buy) and the university labs produce more grant-attracting papers (which provide background data for the companies to work from). Everybodies happy.

    Except for us folks who have to fork out for new seed every year, or have to purchase extortionate anti-virals of limited effectiveness (Tribavirin anyone?)

    While the flow of data between corporations and academeis useful to society, some of those corporations are acting against ALL our interests.

    I live in Cambridge.It is a very homogenous, flat landscape, intensively farmed, dotted by large white pharmaceutical factories.
    The university gets a lot of money to pursue biotech reearch.
    Do I trust the University to scrutinise the actions of the corporations they are in bed with?
    Do I trust these corporations to not fuck up the biosphere?

    At UCL in London the pharmaceutical giant Wellcome (as it was at the time) were sited just next door.They were very friendly with the medical school. They even ran one of the 2nd year study modules. Where they had their crowning glory: a museum!

    "The History of Medicine" brought to you by Wellcome.

  • "They're going to try to develop two varieties of a crop - one that can reproduce, and one that can't. How long do you think such a setup would last before they "accidentally" mixed some sterile seed in with the non-sterile? Then a year later, poor farmers who needed to save seeds from the previous year's crops will plant them, but nothing will grow. And this will spread. "

    An appropriate place, if any, to point out natural selection at work. If some seeds are for sterile plants, the next year's crop will be smaller, but 100% of the second year's crop will be fertile if the sterile variety is dominant.

    More likely the reproductive gene will be dominant. If you assume a 50/50 mix of seed, this means the 2nd year 100% will be fertile, the 3rd 75% will be fertile. The 4th year would have a smaller crop, but would be 5/9 fertile. The 5th year the algebra beginds to get more complicated. If I get some time and a spreadsheet I 'll have to do the calculations in a spreadsheet and post the results later.

    The point is, the sterile variety is not part of the reproductive population, so it can never completely take over.
  • Personally, I've always wanted more arms.
  • colchicine to make polyploids in their houses? Be honest, they are messing with marijuana aren't they?
  • Moderate this up!! I for one will be doing this from now on. Th4nx d00d!

  • >Folks, the world is NOT our oyster. Just because someone has something we want does NOT give us the right to take it from them. If someone puts their blood sweat and tears into something, you can't just take it for granted.

    Why not? I don't understand this whole Ayn Rand/philosophers in their ivory towers BS. This really is not meant to be a flame but I want a real answer. You have a piece of paper saying that property X is yours (be it physical or IP). That is your beliefs. Guess what, nature says it's OK to use force to get what you need. If Joe Farmer is 7 foot tall and decides to slap you upside the head and take what he needs, so what. This whole concept of no one has the right to use force is naive at best. It doesn't matter if it isn't a right. The farmers in Africa killing off white farmers to take back land is just the way it is. The white farmers have papers saying they are entitled to the land? Whoopdie doo, it's a freaking piece of paper, nothing more.
  • In Canada, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office [ic.gc.ca] has allowed the patenting of single cells that have been genetically modified. However, they refused to patent Harvard's OncoMouse. Does this seem like an arbitrary line to you? It does to me. The "slippery slope" just gets steeper and slicker from here on in.

    One aspect of patent law that should be re-examined is the duration of patent protection. Why, for instance, do all patents remain in force for 20 years (or 17 years, if your jurisdiction hasn't caught up to it's WIPO treaty obligations). Some companies may need more time than that to make enough to make a product profitable (though it's hard to imagine). But many companies are laughing all the way to the bank. "Hah!" they say, "I've paid for my investment in the first year and the next nineteen are gravy."

    Because there is no variation in the length of patent protection, those who anticipate patent-fattened revenue are forced to demand the maximum duration possible from legislators. No patent holding organization would argue to reduce the patent duration, so the only force exerted against political inertia is to force the patent term upwards.

    If the object of patents is to secure a public good, then we should make some attempt to grant a length of time proportionate in some way to the benefit which the public receives. Inventions which are more beneficial (by some measure TBA) would receive longer patent terms.

    Another possible attenuation of patent protection would be to evaluate the patent applicant's business plan the way a bank does, and set the patent term to be just long enough (no more and no less) to allow the R&D investment to be recouped plus a reasonable profit margin.

    Do these suggestions seem like totally unrealistic pipe-dreams, or do they seem practical? Not being a patent lawyer or a drug manufacturer, I don't really have a sense of what would be possible.

  • How is building what is effectively a new species or sub-species of plant by cross-breeding existing varieties any different from using simple mechanisms that already exist in order to build patentable complex machines.

    Well, in fact, I agree that they seem similar. Therefore we ought to view the patenting of complex machines with the same wary eye with which we view the patenting of virii.

    Be careful what you wish for...

    Sincerely,

    :0)=

    or the Artist formerly known as the Artist formerly known as Prince.

  • Lots of people can't get weed to plant the next crop, there's a big famine in most of the world(3rd world, should I say, they always get all the hits), and that means LOTS of people die, revolutions(not that they are bad, but...), etc, more people die. Sure it is a fast solution to the demographic problems on earth.

    I imagine worse than that. Much worse. Never mind that Monsanto [monsantosucks.com] is the same company that brought the gift of PCBs to the world [intekom.com], ignoring the evidence of how hazardous they are, and also brought us saccharin [monsanto.com] and even brag about that on their webpage, that they censor [intekom.com]opposing views, and generally act like the genetic Mafia, suing farmers left and right. [fightfrankenfood.com]

    Giving this vicious, dishonest, fascist corporation a monopoly on natural phenomena and then encouraging them to spread crops with zero genetic diversity across the world invites terrorism. Imagine this: Monsanto succeeds in their vision of global domination of the food market. Then Iraq releases a phage specifically targeting Monsanto products, resulting in global crop failures. Due to all the crops being the same, or having been cross-pollinated by the offensive plants, world starvation, global riots, a world war, you get the picture.

    Even worse, I wouldn't put it past Monsanto to release such a phage themselves. Is there a single damn thing this company has ever made that isn't toxic, carcinogenic, or otherwise vile?

    Even if none of the worst-case scenarios happen, they abandon the "Terminator" seeds, and they *merely* get a monopoly on the food market, and create a slave-class of Third World farmers who work as serfs to pay for seeds each year, because they aren't allowed to save seeds--after all, by the insane logic of "intellectual" property law the natural growth of plants is now "patent infringement"--isn't that bad enough?

    This company is pure fucking evil and they need to be stopped.

  • Well it is Monsanto who has developed the strong breeds of crops in the first place. Nobody has the right to reproduce Monsanto's intellectual property (which their genetically altered crops are).

    Another mindless corporate shill. The plants already have the potential to cross-pollinate. What are you gonna fucking do, sue God?

    Moron.

  • Without patent protection all of that work will go to waste if competitors get there first.

    Good! Maybe greed-motivated monster multinational corporations SHOULDN'T be encouraged to go out playing God when they haven't even shown they're responsible with plain old chemicals.

    I don't particularly see the POINT of encouraging Mafia-like thugocrats like the Monsanto corporation to pollute the genetic environment with potentially dangerous and untested genetic technologies when they've already poisoned the world with poisonous chemicals like PCBs. They blithely ignored warnings about those, just like they do about the potential hazards of the crap they're unleashing now. They have deliberately gone out of their way even to prevent customers from knowing whether they are eating their products. If they are so wonderful, then why do they hide and lie like that?

    What's next, a genetically-engineered human-based slave class whose children are taken away and killed because they reproduced without a license?

  • GNU = Genetic Not Usual

    My Webcam [michaelcreasy.com]
  • I'd be interested if this is true, and all these companies are selling seeds for sterile plants. My understanding was that Monsanto gave up on those 'terminator' seeds.
  • So, free beer will *finally* become a reality, eh? Or, at least the super-disease-resistant grain to make it will be :-)

  • I'm gonna have to agree with AC on that one.
  • It seems they are striking a deal with the devil. They provide Monsanto et al with the genetic varieties that allow the companies to generate their new self replicating hybrids. Monsanto claims it will use these for rapid breeding and improvement, freely release these to third world farmers then remove their ability to self replicate and sell them in the third world.

    What make you think that Monsanto would actually let them release a truly high-yield self-replicating hybrid to poor farmers and expect to stay in business in the 1st world. I'll bet monsanto will give them a defective breed and prevent them from distributing any derived breeds.

    This center should do their own breeding, publish all their work to make it unpatentable and release breeds to farmers everywhere.

  • Forget about child support, let's talk about clones, and gene therapy.

    That way, anyone who wants to have my child, or take a piece of me for study, or use in another living organism will have to pay me a licensing fee to for use of my unique genes. :)

  • Once a patent is received (to be used defensively), come up with a non-expiring license for the product. Then sell that license for, oh...say $1.00. Make the licensing on a *per species* basis, so that the first Homo-sapiens to license it opens it up for the species. Would still need to tackle derivative works somehow, but this would at least allow the center to distribute their work to poorer countries...
  • Moderate up further! Very funny!

  • Of course, the idea that someone can _patent_ something which was for the most part created naturally (my "favorite" being the companies patenting human genes) is, IMHO, riduculous.

    Agreed. Even scarier than patenting something evolved out of artificial selection are patents of plants found in nature, like these [oliveira.com], that could help a lot of people but are now "property" of someone.

  • OK, suppose there were a genetic patentleft, a PPL. I suppose this means that you could ship PPL'ed food items on the same delivery truck (tar file) as non-PPL'ed food items, but you are prohibited from making a stew that combines them?

    What if you use a genetic patentleft that works like a BSD license? Would that mean that every carrot has to come with a splash page that lists all the people who contributed to its genotype?
  • Red Star Industries presents:
    Homo Sapiens Sapiens v. 2.2.15

    Thank you for downloading this service patch to the human genome.We would like to take a moment to remind you that all service patches to the human DNA structure created and released by Red Star Industries are covered by the GNU HG-GPL(www.gnu.org/HG-GPL/ [gnu.org])and are copyleft 2000 of RSI.

    Red Star Industries assures you that the genetic code contained within is safe for use and free of any gene-based virii.However,should you be afflicted by a genetic disease as a result of using our product,return it and we shall send you within 24 hours a complimentary gene therapy kit to help you recover.

    HSS v. 2.2.15 contains all of the following features:
    *Converts all old materials created with older versions of HSS to the new formats to ensure maximum reliability.

    *Increases stability of communication and transfer between all versions of HSS
    *Adds an enhanced filtering system to prevent entry of unwanted matterials *Corrects bugs limiting COMMON_SENSE values.
    *Increases brain cappacity by up to 10%!
    *More emotional settings for incresed customization
    *and much,much more!

    HSS v. 2.2.15 is available now from www.rsi.com/HSS/2.2/ [fake.com],Freshmeat [freshmeat.net],and all of the usual software sources.Versions for Win,Mac,Linux,FreeBSD,BeOS,and others are now available,so download today!


    Etot "sig" byit pisyat v Russki!
    (35.0% Slashdot nezdorovi.)
  • Just login with username: cypherpunks and password: cypherpunks -- this trick works at a number of places. And if you find one where it doesn't, well then free-register it yourself, for the benefit of others :-)

    Just think of it as an anti-registration meme. Not only is it less hassle for you, it also screws up their marketing statistics.
  • Before opening this bag of seed, you must agree to the terms of the end user license agreement? Yup, it's already happening, believe it or not. I went to buy some seed potatoes on-line at www.irish-eyes.com and on one variety it said "For personal use only." How can someone dictate where and how you use what you grow? In the future, all new varieties may be patented and come with license agreements. Monsanto has their "Roundup(TM) Ready(TM)" corn and other crops that produce sterile seeds. What if you got one of them to grow? What if you started to produce your own corn (non hybrid) that had the same genes, but a different name? You'd be sued by Monsanto, of course, because no one can produce those genes without their consent. Now, to really boggle your mind. What if I get a patent on the Y chromosome? No one may produce male offspring without my written consent?
  • >After all, it doesn't copy perfectly. It's not digitally recorded. When did DNA stop being a digital code? CGAT is a quantenary digital code.
  • ummm i know you were being funny, but what part of prior art do you not understand?

  • Dog patent? No. (Score:3)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Wednesday May 24, 2000 @10:16AM (#1050723) Homepage Journal

    what's next, someone patenting a dog?

    No, of course not.

    The patent is for an online apparatus that humps your leg.


    ---
  • Oh nice job, moderators. This sort of flame bait pops up alot.

    If I could STILL keep my car I would give away my car.

    Confused? Good.

    There's a big difference between a limited material good and a "product" that has zero copy cost.

  • bioinformatics.org (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Bioinformatics.org [bioinformatcis.org] is also trying to fight this madness. We have been posting relevant news items for a while and have been discussing the development of a Bioinformatics Public License (BPL) (feature article to come).

    J.W. Bizzaro

  • that was a nice post.

    The export crop problem really is at the heart of the issue, and it is something that is never talked about unless you're attending an IMF protest.

    --

  • So you are saying that you have hungry children and starving livestock, eh? Well, as a matter of fact I have an idea about a way to genetically engineer crops that could be of some use to you. Special plants designed specifically to grow well in this environment. What's that? If I do this, I have to give it all away for free? So I can't get a loan and repay it later from the profits? So I can't get any money to run a lab? Oh, well, I'm sure you can just foot the bill for a genetics lab and do all the work yourself in your spare time.

    Free software is one thing. It only takes $1k-$2k to get enough computing power to write software. To genetically engineer crops is an industrial research enterprise. At the very least you need a lab and some test beds to make it work. It is labor and capital intensive. And there is no such thing as 'deep gene-splicing mode' where young geneticists spend all their spare time hacking (gene) code. We cannot truly open source the world.

    The capital system provides a good system for moving goods through the developed world.

    What we do with the developed world, I don't rightly know. They can't afford tractors, pesticides, or fertilizers, the way US and European farmers can, either. Should we give those away for free as well? If so, who do we not pay? The companies that make them? They'll have a hard time making payroll if we do.

    Folks, the world is NOT our oyster. Just because someone has something we want does NOT give us the right to take it from them. If someone puts their blood sweat and tears into something, you can't just take it for granted.

  • Patentleft? I have a better name. I misread the title at first glance and instead of "copyleft" I saw "copyleaf." But it fits very well.

  • No free reg required (Score:3)

    by DoorFrame ( 22108 ) on Wednesday May 24, 2000 @08:16AM (#1050729) Homepage
    Click here [nytimes.com].
  • Nah, Abbie stole the idea from Woody Guthrie.

    Of course Woody was a notorious IP thief, it's a wonder they teach his pirated stuff to school children.

    By the way, Woody once donated a bunch of his stuff to public domain, in *writing*, and a publisher years later yanked it back. They'll sue your ass to this day for recording one of these public domain songs without paying them.
  • GPL = Genetic Public License? :o)
  • No, we don't all know this. Don't be so rude and snobbish.
  • Property and the restraint of physical force are concepts invented by what we call civilized man. You may have heard the term "civilized," and you may not but it's generally agreed that behaving like apes with big sticks is not the most comfortable way to live.

    Was your post merely meant to troll? Seriously, do you want to be able to make beneficial peaceful trades with others, or spend your time adding a moat and yet another machinegun to the measly hut which you were too busy to build properly because you were defending the produce of your garden from the daily mob?

    Property may be a fiction, but it's a game of pretend that I really want to keep playing!


    --
    Peace, education, prosperity, and a clean environment:
    find out how the free market does it right.
  • The story makes it sound like the center is using patents to protect the availability of their hybrids, which is sensible.

    I'm still not sure how anyone can get a patent on a specific set of genes. My understanding of patents would allow a breeder or researcher to patent a particular new hybrid, or at least the process for generating that hybrid, but specific genes are things that already exist in nature, and should be unpatentable. Patenting of genes is more evidence of a deep intellectual confusion in IP law, and people's attempts to make rational decisions in an irrational environment.

  • Huh? 'Copyleft'?? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Wonder if they've ever heard of copyleft

    Has any legal body, anywhere, heard of 'copyleft'?

    I thought it was just a clever slogan that gets printed on tee-shirts.

    In other words, it's irrelevant. The GPL is based on the same copyright laws as any other software (aside from Public Domain software.)

  • Freedom of information is as important to the technological ecosystem as it is to the farms who need the genetic information described in the article. Each one is a great metaphor for the other.

    With all the discoveries being made about genetics, it's a shame that the predominating sense of capitalism is preventing people from sharing ideas and furthering research. It's as if everyone has a piece of the puzzle, but nobody wants to be the first to give it up.

  • "When it first came out," he said, handing a free copy to a visitor, "my idea was to put on the back of each one: 'Duplication of this CD is enthusiastically encouraged.'"
  • Unlike the patents that are being requested for human genes (millions of years of existance somehow doesn't qualify as "prior art"???), the patents that are requested for crops are unique genetic combinations developed by the company that is requesting the patent. How is building what is effectively a new species or sub-species of plant by cross-breeding existing varieties any different from using simple mechanisms that already exist in order to build patentable complex machines.
  • Well, it seems like a good idea. I wonder if the GPL would apply. After all, they are dealing with source code after a fashion.

    I see the scientists point on wanting to maintain genetic diversity in things like crops. More often than not, bad things have come from perversions of good peoples ideas. Einstein, for example, was appaled at what was done with his atomic research and washed his hands completely of it.

    The thought of genetic engineering frankly scares the hell out of me. I don't think that human kind, as a whole, is mature enough for that kind of power over the very building blocks of life itself. Yes, it can be used to make hardier crops with higher yields, prevent certain diseases, and a score of other things on the brighter side.
    However, the splitting of the atom can be used for a cheap, abundant power source... but was it? How many nuclear reactors pump out the juice for poor, third world countries? How many nuclear weapons do China, Russia, and the USA have? Slightly disparate numbers aren't they?

    I forsee a lot of bad stuff coming out of this research, things like the movie Gattica portrayed are on the tamer side of what I think could happen. I can see a "Genetically Enhanced Elite" arising, and, since they are better than everyone else, demanding to be treated better. We're going to be looking at more of a "Soldier" (Kurt Russel Universal Soldier rip off) scenario.

    I can only hope that the scientists are succesful in keeping the HGP out of the hands of mega corporations who would use it for the wrong purposes entirely. Good luck to them.

  • Patents and Copyrights are DIFFERENT (Score:3)

    by brennanw ( 5761 ) on Wednesday May 24, 2000 @08:26AM (#1050740) Homepage Journal
    It doesn't matter if they've heard of copyleft or not... Patent Law and Copyright Law are two different beasts. Patented things may be copyrighted... maybe... but copyrighting (more likely trademarking) something you've patented would simply be a trademark of the product you've created based on a patent.

    As far as I know the idea of copyleft doesn't translate well into the world of patents. Which is not a good thing...
  • Patents for certain things are idiotic, period. They're stupid for lines of code, and they're just as stupid for living things. If companies need to resort to patenting something so that it can remain useful and beneficial, maybe it's time that we see where an induvidual/comapany should be able to protect, and where it shouldn't. Already we have cases of companies trying to patent human genes, what's next, someone patenting a dog?

    Sheesh!

  • Yeah, we know about the GPL in biotech. (Score:3)

    by seaneddy ( 121477 ) on Wednesday May 24, 2000 @09:00AM (#1050742) Homepage
    The Human Genome Project looked hard at GPL'ing the human genome sequence -- so yes, first of all, scientists (and our legal advisors) in biotech know about the GPL.

    The power of the GPL rests in copyright law. Unfortunately, copyright law doesn't protect many of the things that we'd like to "open genome". US copyright law provides only very weak protection on databases; no copyright law protects inventions/discoveries/natural products. Hence, you're forced to look at patent or contract law. It's hard to develop a system with the awesome viral power of the GPL that exploits patent or contract law.

    In the end, the genome project settled for keeping the genome fully public domain, and Clinton and Blair made a high moral ground statement about how that was a Good Thing (tm).

    ... and the next day, the biotech sector cratered, costing investors billions of dollars. There is a shocking amount at stake when you start discussing "open genome" models for genetic data. It's not a lighthearted discussion. (Speaking from experience, having been attacked in a meeting for my "open genome" views by someone who probably lost on the order of many millions of US$ that day.)

  • Advances in Genome Tech and Agriculture looks appealing to the Developed Countries, but many Asian countries are heavily dependant on revenue earned by selling its Crops, who would be adversely affected by these patents. These life forms does not belong to any individual or any company. No matter what alterations man makes to life, life does not change unless it wants to be changed. Life alters Life. Man is just another pawn. I could only pity with these scientists and those who fund them in believing that they could control Life and through that make money out of the hapless farmers.
  • There have existed a couple of cheaply marketed sterile hybrids of corn, and at least one strain of wheat. These haven't been an issue, because they are truly cost effective steriles (or so I have been told)

    The 'Terminator' seeds were an intentional modification to a normal strain, that has the monstrous capacity to become a profiteering standard. I should have phrased that rather doomed-sounding phrase as 'things could get much, much worse'. (While I may consider them to be a sure eventuality, none of these intentionally modified plants have made it to market. Yet. )

    References? I'm a former farm boy that spent way too much time around the Co-op and the Hardware and Feed. I heard the same old complaints year after year. I suppose that makes it anecdotal at worst.
  • law 5 years before it's deemed unconstutional and scrapped. Man, will the biotech companies be screwed then.

    The problem is that medicine and biotech are such multi-faceted diciplines. A patent on a gene someone develops to keep their corn alive, has a good chance becoming part of a cure for a human disease, or whatever. (sure that scenario is a longshot, but you get the jist)

    As soon as a case comes along where a bio-patent obstructs someone's freedom to receive proper health care or live thier life in a reasonable fashion, (Imagine if a cure for Diabetes was held up cause of a genetic patent case!)

    tcd004

    Check out Janet Reno Margolis [lostbrain.com], the least downloaded woman on the internet!

  • Defensive Patents are getting pretty necessary

    Defensive patents have been necessary for a very long time. The 19th century Shakers learned that the hard way when commercial companies started patenting medicines the Shakers had invented.

  • So those companies should just spend billions of dollars on that research without any possibility of getting a return on their investment?

    Donate your car to charity. Be the first to give it up. What's that you say? No way? Why not? You didn't mind suggesting that an R&D lab fork over their entire VC funding and years of effort for 'The Human Fund', why the sudden reluctance to part with something as minor as a car? Oh, that's right, you don't wanna do it cos it's *your* car... but it's not your research, not your discoveries, so it's ok to give those away. Right?

    Altruism usually isn't - it's always easier to pledge 'the other guy's' resources...

  • Aaarrgh (Score:3)

    by Thiarna ( 111890 ) on Wednesday May 24, 2000 @09:07AM (#1050748)
    This sort of article (the NYTimes one, not the slashdot one) drives me mad. I have questions about copyright in many cases (software, music) but at least here some sort of protection of the creators rights is needed. Im not too happy about genetic engineering, but I dont think trying to stop it because it can be used for bad as well as good makes sense. But here we have the worst possible use of genetic engineering not being controlled, but in fact being protected by law.

    Read the article, it is totally inconsistant. It starts off saying that new resistant food crops will allow everyone in the third world to have food. The main problem in the third world is not droughts and famine, these are just the worst case disasters. The problem is food is farmers are forced to mainly grow food for export (cash crops) as opposed to local varieties. Availability of new varieties of food wont change this. OK this paragraphs a bit muddled, but look it up if you want a more thorough explanation.

    What strikes me is that the paper is trying to sell genetic engineering by big multinationals as a good thing, and give the example of these people working with patents and with these companies as an example. Later in the article it says how these organisations can give the reproducing organisms for use in the third world, and the multinationals can sell crops that wont reproduce in the developed world. First off why should I believe that will happen?

  • Corporate genomic and biotech companies are not beneficial to the current state of using GMOs to provide fitness for any particular purpose...WHY?...

    1) Food supply issues are largely political... see: here [penpress.org] for some reasons why.

    2) The game plan at many Biotech companies include making money for shareholders and creating demand for products that aren't neccessary... check out the mission statement from my former employer, DNAP [dnap.com].

    I was going to just copy the mission statement onto this post, but I think that got /. in trouble with microsoft once... :-).

  • Bull...

    True, much of the purely theoretical work does occur in an academic setting, most universities can't hold a candle to the resources present in a commercial biotech company to produce actual product. not only do they tend to have better physical resources, but the promise of higher salary and benefits attracts more scientific talent. believe me, if you had the choice between going to work for a high paying biotech company or staying at the university as a grad student for meager wages, where would you end up?

  • Terminator seeds (Score:3)

    by Carnage4Life ( 106069 ) on Wednesday May 24, 2000 @09:09AM (#1050751) Homepage Journal
    You're right Monsanto did drop the technology [rockfound.org] which is good for several reasons. [sedos.org]

    Interestingly enough the USDA has patented the technology [colorado.edu] I wonder if this was alos a defensive patent? If not who is to say that other companies beside Monsanto will not start using terminator seeds in third world countries?

  • oh yeah? then how come more people don't?
  • From the article:

    "Once the right type is developed, it can be distributed to poor countries. The company can eliminate the reproductive gene for commercial sales in developed countries."

    This scares the hell out of me.

    They're going to try to develop two varieties of a crop - one that can reproduce, and one that can't. How long do you think such a setup would last before they "accidentally" mixed some sterile seed in with the non-sterile? Then a year later, poor farmers who needed to save seeds from the previous year's crops will plant them, but nothing will grow. And this will spread.

    We've already seen that some varieties of GM crops - even the ones that are supposedly sterile - will cross-pollinate with other varieties. (Remember last year, Monsanto was suing a farmer who did not purchase GM seeds from them, simply because his crops were cross-pollinated by his neighbor's GM plants? Don't remember? Check http://www.inetex.com/joanne/monsanto_sues_farmer_ over_gen.htm. More info can be found at http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/news4/monsanto2.html.)

    And can we really trust a company with a history of suing its own customers over patent infringment to release non-sterile seed, out of the goodness of their corporate hearts?

    God....and we thought Microsoft was bad. These people want to control every gene in every plant, and sue anyone who dares to be so impudent as to grow crops that might be cross-pollinated by their patented varities.

    This patenting of life forms and genetic material needs to stop, and needs to stop now. It's only going to get much, much worse.

  • Re:Patents and Copyrights are DIFFERENT (Score:3)

    by sigwinch ( 115375 ) on Wednesday May 24, 2000 @12:43PM (#1050754) Homepage

    As far as I know the idea of copyleft doesn't translate well into the world of patents.

    Sure it does. In fact, it's done all the time. Consider the various hardware standards, like PCMCIA, USB, and Rambus. There is typically a company who holds various patents on the technology (i.e., you can't make a particular type of gadget without their permission). And they'll license all those patents to anybody who asks, on two conditions:

    1. You agree to license all of your patents on the technology to all users of the technology, and
    2. You agree to pay a small fee. Sometimes the fee is a flat rate, and sometimes it is per-manufactured-unit. Either way, it's affordable compared to the cost of manufacture. Many times, the fee is only there to keep the licensing company afloat, so it's usually affordable.

    It's not as simple as copyright, because the stakes are higher and patent law is more onerous, and it does require a corporation for the purposes of entering into licensing contracts, but it is doable.

    There's also the IBM approach [ibm.com] to patents:

    "IBM is generally willing to grant nonexclusive licenses under its patents. ... Included in the agreement is an option for IBM to obtain a nonexclusive royalty bearing license under patents of the licensee on terms similar to those described above."

    In other words, they'll license many of their patents on reasonable terms, if you'll reciprocate. This similar to the copyleft concept.

  • They are doing it with soybean and corn seeds, so every year you must buy new ones. What really scares me is how the government controls these seeds. The farmer can't afford to buy from a normal company, but he can sure get a deal on the one time use government seeds.

  • This article is excellent, I applaud these people from the bottom of my heart.

    The rapacity of biotech conglomerates really scares me, because they're actually tampering witn out food sources using technology that's not wholly understood. Mainly, I'm worried because corporations seem to be running roughshod over everybody, and need not answer to anybody, and are free from any kind of restraint or responsibility. THAT's scary.

    It's tough to compete against them, because, by nature, people tend to not look for trouble; so you find that it's one or two farmers who are fighting against a whole corporation; of course the corp is gonna run all over them.

    I just home this stage of humanity reaches it's end soon; the sooner the better.

    -elf

  • Folks, the world is NOT our oyster. Just because someone has something we want does NOT give us the right to take it from them. If someone puts their blood sweat and tears into something, you can't just take it for granted.

    I agree. But what I was talking about was the idea. Patenting ideas and genetic structures could very easily lead to a world where one person might have a perfect solution for another, and have the ability to share it, but for economic reasons, won't. Note: I am just talking about the idea, not the implementation of it. I surely wouldn't expect someone to set up a farm in another country to feed it's peasants, but if that person has information or ideas that might help those people...it's still up to them, but I know what I think is right. That was my point. You don't need pure capitalism for IP, it leads to fascism as we are currently seeing in the U.S.
    --
  • It is sad but the reality of biotech research whether in the public or the private domain is that patents are needed. While patenting a gene sequence is still somewhat indefensible by public researchers, patenting genetically modified species is a necessity. A research group will put years of effort and hundreds of thousands of research dollars into researching and developing a genetically modified product. Without patent protection all of that work will go to waste if competitors get there first. (And the biotech world is fiercely competitive even within universities). Public institutions and charitable research groups simply cannot afford to take those risks.

    It may seem hard to believe but even third world nations own some of these patents. Recent collaborations between western research institutes and african, south american and asian researchers have led to development of vitamin enriched rice and faster growing rice varieties which are patented and owend by the countries involved in their development.
    Research is expensive and the people who fork out the cash have to see some reward. In the private arena this may be profit, in the public arena it is the protection of the product and developers rights. Both are protected by patents.

  • The cited article says, "Chakravarty, who wanted to patent some already known uses of the neem tree, was refused a patent, but the possibility of a rich, industrialized nation patenting a traditional source of healing aroused considerable anger."

    However, a BBC report [bbc.co.uk] more recently states, "The patent was granted to the US Department of Agriculture and the W R Grace corporation. ... It allows them to make a fungicide derived from the neem tree, which is indigenous to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh."

    I think it's too late to rely on the USPTO to refuse to recognize such patents. Instead, those who wish to keep such "intellectual property" free must take out defensive patents. The problem is how to raise the money to enforce them. (Small bio-technology companies have found it so expensive to patent inventions that they now are relying mostly on trade secret laws instead--and so there is no "progress of science and the useful arts.")

    An alternative would be simply to refuse to recognize them--South Africa went this route in threatening to produce AIDS drugs that were patented by rich country companies, but too expensive (they claimed) for Africans.

  • The problem with patents is that they are (necessarily) very specific. Nature tends not to be. That, after all, is why there are more humans reading Slashdot than protozoa.

    Copyright, as I understand it, applies to the deliberate organisation of data. That, too, should not be applicable. After all, naturally-occuring DNA is not deliberately organised, at least not by any human agency. (Otherwise it wouldn't be natural!)

    I understand industry's passionate desire to protect artificially-created DNA, but can you? After all, it doesn't copy perfectly. It's not digitally recorded. Thus, the "invention" will decay, through natural processes, ending up as something totally different.

    IMHO, to satisfy all parties, there needs to be a new system, which protects the original invention but which specifically either EXcludes or INcludes by-products of that invention. It also needs to be valid for no greater period than the first natural example of the same construct is found.

    But, for now, if patents apply, copyright should as well. So go with it! I'd like to buy a cerial box of GPL flakes. :)

  • doesn't the us government realize that if patents worked the way they are supposed to then this would not be neccessary? If I invent something and I don't patent it, then some else "invents" it later and patents it, I lose. This is ridiculous.

  • About damn time!! (Score:3)

    by technos ( 73414 ) on Wednesday May 24, 2000 @08:28AM (#1050763) Homepage Journal
    It's been a running complaint that the same seed costs more every year, not because of inflation or increased production cost, but because the big agro congloms know they're the only game in town and can charge whatever they damn well please. Now that the congloms have figured out how to make farmers need to buy their wares every year through genetic manipulation to make the plants utterly sterile, things are getting MUCH, MUCH worse..

    Perhaps some enterprising ag engineer and a couple of lawyers can keep this trend from escalating through the fear of these patents. "I will only license this patent if the cost of the finished product does not exceed x. I'll give it to you for free if the cost is x-4. Don't like it? You can't sell at all!!"
  • I support them fully, especially if they could arrange some sort of patent-sharing arrangment with some of the big biotech companies. Of course, the idea that someone can _patent_ something which was for the most part created naturally (my "favorite" being the companies patenting human genes) is, IMHO, riduculous. BUT, that's the system, it's broken, and the only way to win out is use the system (so, copyleft and defensive patents).
  • I'm still not sure how anyone can get a patent on a specific set of genes. My understanding of patents would allow a breeder or researcher to patent a particular new hybrid, or at least the process for generating that hybrid, but specific genes are things that already exist in nature, and should be unpatentable.
    AFAIK, they don't patent the gene as it exists in the cell, they patent the extracted gene as it exists in the test tube, spliced and diced out of the genome using common gene lab methods. That way, they're not patenting something that demonstrably existed before (thus skirting the "millions of years of prior art" issue), but they make it illegal for anyone else to manipulate the gene in a laboratory setting.
  • "If I invent something and I don't patent it, then some else "invents" it later and patents it, I lose."

    You can't get a patent if "prior art" can be shown. So when that "some else" applies for the patent, you just pop up and say "nuh-uh, I did it a year ago".
    --
    Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
  • my social studies teacher once told us that some company copyrighted the color pink. anybody know if this is true?
  • But how would you word it? Patent it as yourself, then GPL the patent? Or can you patent something on behalf of a non-profit and then GPL it? Better yet, can you just patent it in the the name of the general public without future developments built on it being patented?

    I don't see how this would work without undermining the concept of patenting (not the current patent process, mind you), but the idea that something is developed, exploited for financial gain for a limited period of time, then released into the public domain. If you put it straight into the public domain, anything that extends it is then patentable.

    Also, this will be expensive. Patents aren't automatic like copyrights. They're very costly. What company is going to pay to give away what they've developed (whether it should be theirs or not)? What government is going to allow its grants to be used to undermine its own patent process for ideological reasons?

    This will be trickier than copylefting code. Bring in the lawyers.

    -jpowers
    You Know You've Been Watching Too Much Ranma 1/2 When...
  • Some people will always have genetic advantages over others. Whether those advantages come from generations of your ancestors always marrying the richest, smartest handsomest people they could find, or from a little tweaking with a test tube, the results are the same. there is no reason why you can't demand more for your genetic advantages, chances are that your current salary is directly related to your intelligence and looks. (Yes, looks are still a hiring factor, no matter what anybody tells you. There are plenty of studies on it.) So accept the survival of the fittest, and cash your check, knowing that there is probably someone coming down the evolutionary line that is better than you.
    Geek-grrl in training
  • Defensive patents have been necessary for a very long time. The 19th century Shakers learned that the hard way when commercial companies started patenting medicines the Shakers had invented.

    The scale has increased a bit, though: were those medicines worth billions of dollars anually? Not to mention the cluelessness in USPTO about technology, leading to oh-so-many patents with clear and obvious prior art. Hopefully they haven't always been as bad as they are.

  • Controversial Bio-Patents and Bio-Piracy (Score:3)

    by Guppy ( 12314 ) on Wednesday May 24, 2000 @09:18AM (#1050771)
    There have been a number of really acrimonious fights over the patenting of organisms lately (Even outside the emotionally charged field of human genetics). In particular is the issue of "Biopiracy", the patenting of organisms that have been in use for ages by indigenous peoples in far-flung parts of the world. Some recent examples include acrimonious fights over the Neem Tree, Basmati Rice, and Tumeric. Here's a Link [genesage.com] to an article on this, any search engine can give you dozens more.

  • Re:DNA, patents and Copyleft (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Of course, if you actually eat GPL flakes, you yourself will be GPLed once the flakes have been metabolized. At that point, you couldn't eat non-GPLed foods.
  • Patents were originally designed to promote science and protect the little guy against big corporations. Now they're being actively used by big corporations to discourage the free exchange of ideas at the expense of the little guy. And the government is starting to realize that.

    Perahps we'll start seeing some reform in the next few years...

  • If the gene sequence is copylefted, does that mean that the cell has to publish its source if it mutates? :-)
    --
    Mike
  • The simple fact is that most truly important research happens in academia and not industry. Look at Nobel prize winners -- only a handful of them are industrial scientists. And when industry does attempt to do important research, more often than not they are competing with similar research going on in academia -- they difference being, of course, that industrial research aims at keeping the knowledge proprietory while academic research doesn't. Sure, not allowing genes to be patented would result in fewer biotech companies -- but why would that be a bad thing?
  • BWAHAHAHAHA! I have the copyright to human DNA! That means I own you all! And every time you have sex, you've gotta pay me royalties!

    ----------------

    NEW CONCEPT! Open source agriculture. Plants with GNU genes. Yeehaw! That means we can plant anything we want and not have to worry about EULA's anymore!

    ---------------

    When opening a package of seeds. . . ". . . By opening this package, you agree to ther terms specified in Farmer Dan's END GARDENER LICENSE AGREEMENT that gives you the right to plant these seeds in only one garden and not to modify or distribute them in any way. . . ."

    ----------------

    I'm currently working on a copyright for Oxygen so you all have to pay me to breathe! BWAHAHAHAHA!

    ----------------

    • I love to sit and write code

    • When I get in a programming mode
      Compile and run
      It is so much fun
  • Recent debate in Ohio concerning GM soybeans and growers who are trying to be "organic" has centered on the fact that the pollen from your neighbor's plot is likely to cross-pollinate with your crop. If your neighbor's plants are one-generation, you might end up with sterile seeds, regardless of what you planted.

    I like the idea of "copyleft" of plant genomes.

    Let's guarantee that we can always go back to "Corn, North American Hybrid #792" etc.

    Fred

  • Patents Issue and Developing Countries (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Though there was no mention of this in the article, patenting of plant resources is a pretty controversial and touchy issue in my country, India. Several plant extracts (turmeric, neem etc) traditionally used in everyday life here as herbal medicine for a variety of ailments, get patented by patent hunters (chiefly American and Japanese). Even strains of rice (the Basmati strain getting patented as Texmati in the US) are not spared. The Indian Govt and NGO's are fighting several cases in courts against these. These problems arise in case of other developing countries too. (Could someone provide good links on these issues?)
  • GNU Plant License

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Close