tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6175426338414934455..comments2024-03-19T06:27:47.905+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Brüstle: what will happen next?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86591796995434803652011-12-14T13:12:13.029+00:002011-12-14T13:12:13.029+00:00ps. Re Nature article.
The ECJ did not determine ...ps. Re Nature article.<br /><br />The ECJ did not determine the patenting of embryo-related inventions to be immoral, but applied the Biotechnology Directive which placed a legal restriction on such patenting because it was believed that within the EU, it would be considered immoral. Odd how this German scientific community would have liked the ECJ to have miscronstrued EU law just because it suits their own self interest. Not very European!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10300050906776537012011-12-14T13:05:53.726+00:002011-12-14T13:05:53.726+00:00Patents are important for the market for the produ...Patents are important for the market for the product, so previous commentators are correct that the EU will still be a good place to do research. The need to 'patent in the home market' argument is old and false for such biotech industries.<br /><br />It was and still is true of the garden shed brigade and those firms (eg mechanical, engineering) who are still focussed on their home nation and not the broader international markets. [The EU is still NOT considered a single market by many firms for various reasons as localism may always rule (I did order a take-away from France once, but the winter channel crossing resulted in the delivery of a frozen meal).<br /><br />The question of defining an embryo is a red-herring argument by those supportive if such patenting. An overly legal and technical interpretation would be counter to the intention to disallow patents in this area. The moral disagreement with abortion is not over the specific number of weeks when technically a foetus can survive on its own (many teenagers could not survive without parental assitance) and the same applies to patenting of embryos. The issue over the establishment of a legal right to life is also a red herring in the embryo-patenting discussion<br /><br />I support the exclusion from patentability, but can still consider this case on its merits. The fact is that at the priority date of the invention, it could not be repeated without the destruction of a human 'embryo'. It is arguably the case that because of this exclusion and also the USA's previous attitude to such research has led to the development of alternative sources of stem cells.<br /><br />It is now time for the Biotech patent industry to "get over it" and be grateful that they received an early Christmas present from the Supreme Court, which gave them a lower hurdle for industrial application than anyone could have imagined, and of which other industries can only dream.<br /><br />My perpetual motion patent application was rejected even though it has use in the research of perpetual motion machines, in addition to its secondary use as a doorstop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29490511888232712952011-12-14T08:42:37.119+00:002011-12-14T08:42:37.119+00:00The Alliance of German Scientific Organizations se...The Alliance of German Scientific Organizations seems to be making a similar point:<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/news/german-science-organizations-slam-european-court-over-stem-cell-ruling-1.9606?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20111213Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11534925382621567622011-11-07T14:09:47.557+00:002011-11-07T14:09:47.557+00:00Am I missing something or is there a bigger questi...Am I missing something or is there a bigger question here: The CJEU is expressing a view on what counts as a human embryo (albeit in the context of a fairly specific question): surely that should not be a matter for a few judges to decide on - it is a question on which there should be a public debate (and on which there are likely to be different answers in different Member States). I know that the CJEU purported not to be broaching "questions of a medical or ethical nature", in effect, what they have done is to decide on a moral question. <br /><br />Also these are questions on which individuals have strong personal opinions, often faith-based, which could colour any jusgement: What are the religious leanings of the Judges and AG?<br /><br />Is there a knock-on effect for, for example, IVF or abortion? I believe there is a similar question being raised in Mississippi (and that both the Republican and Democrat prosective governers there are in favour) - causing some concern; and plans for the same issue to be raised in other states too.<br /><br />Or am I wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30803084830653662122011-10-31T17:17:28.381+00:002011-10-31T17:17:28.381+00:00Rhetorically (as you are no doubt a busy man), I a...Rhetorically (as you are no doubt a busy man), I am curious as to why everyone thinks the consequences of the CJEU's decision will drive research and investment away from Europe to the detriment of Europe. <br /><br />Surely the opposite would be the case. No patent coverage in Europe would give free rein to any company wanting to conduct research in Europe on stem cell technology to do so without fear of patent protection. Also, no doubt, whatever equivalent to a generics industry that forms out this research and commercialisation of this technology will set up shop in Europe, and conduct whatever necessary clinical trials etc here in preparation for selling to the rest of the world once patent protection in those countries expires. <br /><br />For the consumer in Europe it would also lead to cheaper therapies as they would not be paying towards the licence fees of these drugs and will benefit from a competitive market. Arguably this might also increase the number of non-Europeans coming to Europe to seek treatment here, and consequently lead to Europe becoming the centre of both stem cell research and treatment around the world. <br /><br />This is of course providing the effect of the CJEU's decision does not encourage other countries to ban stem cell related patents and as such there will still be money to be made from it elsewhere. <br /><br />Therefore the only downside to the decision would seem to be a reduced pot of funds globally to conduct future research. On the other hand the upsides for Europe are likely to be 1) an increase in the number of organisations conducting stem cell research here (especially with no shortage of skilled labour); 2) an increase in generic-types conduction clinical trials; and 3) the place to come to be treated. <br /><br />It seems to me that the effect of the CJEU's decision will benefit Europe massively and of course have the presumably unintended consequence of ensuring significantly more destruction of human embryos in Europe than anywhere else, which I fear was not quite what its so-called "moral" judgment was intended to achieve.Adrian Howesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68530404469368936282011-10-31T14:56:59.902+00:002011-10-31T14:56:59.902+00:00@Anonymous 11:35am You seems to be missing the fa...@Anonymous 11:35am You seems to be missing the fact that, for most companies, their home market is their most important. This is for all sorts of reasons: better in tune with local market trends; easier relations with suppliers and distributers (same language, same time zone, etc.); no exposure to currency fluctuations; etc. So Europe is likely to be a proportionately less important market for a US company than it is for a European company.TJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66361788907847954052011-10-31T11:35:50.967+00:002011-10-31T11:35:50.967+00:00I am sure I am missing something, but I would like...I am sure I am missing something, but I would like someone to explain the following statement, which is often made when discussing patent policy, but which never made much sense to me: "In particular, if investors cannot obtain patent protection for such inventions in Europe, are they still going to invest in European stem cell companies?"<br /><br />Why does this disproportionately affect European companies? US companies will not be able to get patent protection in Europe either, and European companies will still be able to get patent protection (assuming it is still available) in the US. European companies are neither uniquely advantaged nor disadvantaged. Conversely, companies may base themselves in Europe to avoid the threat of infringment actions (ignoring the research exemption for now), whilst still being able to use patent protection in overseas markets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com