MORE SEEDY DEALINGS IN IRAQ


The IPKat has heard once again from his friend Michael Harman on the effects of IP protection in Iraq (see blog of 24 August). Michael writes:

Private Eye has picked up the story about the Iraqi Order 81, Rule 15 protecting plant varieties, with a reference to Michael Meacher’s Times article. Apparently campaign groups like Grain and Focus have added a Monsanto-approved statement that the new law applies only to new registered plant varieties, not traditional varieties. But the Eye says that there are virtually no stocks of traditional seeds in Iraq following the war and looting, so US giants can offer their "patented, no re-use, cheap-this-time, pay a fortune … seeds" when all the traditional seeds have gone.

What isn’t clear to me is whether the new Iraqi law extends the normal deadlines for protecting patentable inventions (eg the "terminator" gene) and plant varieties. I also wonder when patent and plant variety infringement proceedings in the Iraqi courts, and effective recovery of damages, is likely to be feasible.

The IPKat isn't a fan of no-reuse seeds at the best of times, let alone in this context.
MORE SEEDY DEALINGS IN IRAQ MORE SEEDY DEALINGS IN IRAQ Reviewed by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Isn't this an inevitable consequence of (a) allowing patents on plant genes and (b) considering a plant to be patent-infringing if it contains those genes even if they got there naturally? After a while the patented genes will have spread into all varieties, and it will be impossible to find and grow non-infringing plants.

    Have you read Information Feudalism?

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.