tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4923298291950586266..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: What lovely melons – and the EPO wants you to know about themVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42184400515907334632012-03-01T09:34:23.793+00:002012-03-01T09:34:23.793+00:00Anonymous@8:20, I'm afraid it is rather you wh...Anonymous@8:20, I'm afraid it is rather you who didn't understand twr57's answer. Francesca asked how a gene found in nature could be patented. The answer, of course, is that it isn't the gene as found in nature (a discovery) which was patented, but rather its <i>use</i> (an invention) in a presumably new and inventive manner. This is the difference between science (the study of nature) and technology (the application of scientific discoveries for useful purposes). You can't patent science, but you can certainly patent technology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-82706223082788299622012-03-01T09:12:00.977+00:002012-03-01T09:12:00.977+00:00Darren,
as most things circulated by e-mail, that...Darren,<br /><br />as most things circulated by e-mail, that comment is, well, wrong on several points.<br /><br />For example: "In particular Monsanto's non reproducing seeds are an abomination."<br /><br />In fact, no such "suicide seeds" have <i>ever</i> been commercialised, and Monsanto in particular pledged already 13 years ago not to commercialise them.<br /><br />One of the reasons, if not the main reason, why Monsanto pledged that is that they considered that their GM seeds could be protected legally through patents, rather than such "genetic use restriction technology".<br /><br />Apart from that, writing "NO PLANT SHOULD BE PATENTED" in ALL CAPS does not make an argument. The question is: why? Why do you believe that patenting genetically modified plants obtained after much research and laboratory work would be negative to food production and/or family farms? Just asserting "This has more to do with Natures work than man's, even in the case of GMOs." All technology is about using the laws of nature for our own purposes. Should patents in the mechanical field be rejected if they involve, for instance, <i>gravity</i>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11611815978007170382012-02-29T20:20:08.982+00:002012-02-29T20:20:08.982+00:00twr57 needs to re-read Francesca's post and se...twr57 needs to re-read Francesca's post and see she has asked a reasonable question, for which there is of course an answer that twr57 may now wish to provide?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81741442127282255622012-02-29T19:13:40.863+00:002012-02-29T19:13:40.863+00:00Francesca, I'm sorry to see you crediting the ...Francesca, I'm sorry to see you crediting the common but mistaken belief that discoveries aren't patentable, I suppose on the flimsy ground that this is what Article 52 EPC says. (The US Act says the opposite, almost equally misleadingly). It's only <i>mere</i> discoveries that aren't patentable. If your discovery leads you to produce a new and previously unobvious process or thing, you can (typically) patent that. It is then no valid objection to say that it is unpatentable because it is based on a discovery.twr57https://www.blogger.com/profile/02330827817659112019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52985381595362718612012-02-29T11:41:23.063+00:002012-02-29T11:41:23.063+00:00in response to the previous comment:
"In an ...in response to the previous comment:<br /><br />"In an age where expanding populations and hunger can be a major problem along with the decline of the family farm, further research on new PLANTs SHOULD BE encouraged and in return be allowed to be PATENTED. This has everything more to do with man's work and nothing to do with nature, especially in the case of GMOs. In particular Monsanto's developments are a great advance and benefit to mankind."<br /><br />The previous comment is most likely written by someone with plenty of food on their plate and lives in a country where many are starving. I know a few commentators who could have written such a statement and they have a well-filled out belly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-73447576397387919312012-02-29T09:37:35.678+00:002012-02-29T09:37:35.678+00:00With permission, I add this comment received by e-...With permission, I add this comment received by e-mail:<br />"In an age where expanding populations and hunger can be a major problem along with the decline of the family farm, NO PLANT SHOULD BE PATENTED. This has more to do with Natures work than man's, even in the case of GMOs. In particular Monsanto's non reproducing seeds are an abomination."Darren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81091198502144412382012-02-28T10:45:42.207+00:002012-02-28T10:45:42.207+00:00If the gene responsible for the resistance it not ...If the gene responsible for the resistance it not new (amounting to a discovery and not to an invention), on which basis is the patent grounded? <br /><br />ThanksFrancescahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12993644128325494085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-80569245285739123042012-02-28T08:35:15.092+00:002012-02-28T08:35:15.092+00:00"Would it have been permissible for the EPO t..."Would it have been permissible for the EPO to announce the patent just before the end of the opposition period" was a poor choice of words. The Kat should have written : "Would it have been permissible for the EPO to announce the expiry of the opposition period just before the limit date for filing oppositions ?"<br /><br />"This case has not graced the elevated halls of the Enlarged Boards of Appeal." For good reason: no appealable decision (refusal, revocation) has been issued yet by the first instance. Patience my friends.<br /><br />Anyway the grounds for opposition do not seem to have anything to do with Article 53 (exclusion from patentability) thus that case is unlikely to rock anybody's world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-80497088536668004192012-02-27T22:15:23.090+00:002012-02-27T22:15:23.090+00:00Anon@6.52, apply Hoffmann principles. 'Announ...Anon@6.52, apply Hoffmann principles. 'Announce' here means 'publicise' rather than 'publish'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42320641847073545852012-02-27T18:52:50.365+00:002012-02-27T18:52:50.365+00:00"Would it have been permissible for the EPO t..."Would it have been permissible for the EPO to announce the patent just before the end of the opposition period,..."<br /><br />Do you really believe that a patent grant should be kept secret until the opposition period has expired?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81930538670075818542012-02-27T15:54:33.690+00:002012-02-27T15:54:33.690+00:00For 'IPO' read 'EPO', we suggest.
...For 'IPO' read 'EPO', we suggest.<br /><i>DME</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84122963808643275862012-02-27T11:59:02.613+00:002012-02-27T11:59:02.613+00:00Merpel, it's not surprising that the IPO are r...Merpel, it's not surprising that the IPO are rather defensive. They're based in Germany. The German Parliament has just (9 February) passed a motion expressing concern about the patenting of plants produced by conventional breeding methods (for unofficial translation see http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/sites/default/files/news/bundestag_en.pdf ). "Cet animal est très méchant...".twr57https://www.blogger.com/profile/02330827817659112019noreply@blogger.com