One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Supreme Court Awards Monsanto
May 19, 2013 10:31:00   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
IMO, the problem isn't so much about protecting intellectual property. The problem is in allowing intellectual property to be applied to self-replicating products. So what if the lack of patent protection for genetically modified food inhibits innovation in that area? Most Americans don't even WANT genetically modified food! The Supreme Court is using a buzzword to run this one through... that buzzword is "innovation", like "freedom" it's a free word that people buy without question, but it SHOULD be questioned because what the Supreme Court is effectively saying now is that they don't want to "inhibit" the innovation of food monopolies.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/15/supreme-court-supports-monsanto-in-patent-dispute.html

Reply
Aug 5, 2013 22:43:14   #
justkillingtime
 
What happens when a GMO organism mutates in the process of reproducing itself? If someone other than the patent holder discovers the mutant, who owns the mutant?

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 08:18:21   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
justkillingtime wrote:
What happens when a GMO organism mutates in the process of reproducing itself? If someone other than the patent holder discovers the mutant, who owns the mutant?

Very good question... I'm not sure if a precedent has been set in the courts for that yet. But I've read some arguments related to this question that suggest the patent holder would have partial claim, much like the supply-chain for mechanical products where components are licensed. I'll use the laptop in front of me as an example. Samsung laptop with a sticker on it that says quite clearly... Intel Core i7(tm) inside.

The argument goes something like this... without the original GMO, that specific mutation would not have happened.

Reply
 
 
Aug 6, 2013 18:00:35   #
justkillingtime
 
straightUp wrote:
Very good question... I'm not sure if a precedent has been set in the courts for that yet. But I've read some arguments related to this question that suggest the patent holder would have partial claim, much like the supply-chain for mechanical products where components are licensed. I'll use the laptop in front of me as an example. Samsung laptop with a sticker on it that says quite clearly... Intel Core i7(tm) inside.

The argument goes something like this... without the original GMO, that specific mutation would not have happened.
Very good question... I'm not sure if a precedent ... (show quote)


It takes a conscious effort for somebody to build a laptop. A living thing can mutate simply because of how nature works. Humans can expose living things to mutagens, but sometimes a mutation will occur regardless of anything a human has or has not done.

Reply
Aug 11, 2013 10:32:00   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
justkillingtime wrote:
It takes a conscious effort for somebody to build a laptop. A living thing can mutate simply because of how nature works. Humans can expose living things to mutagens, but sometimes a mutation will occur regardless of anything a human has or has not done.


I agree. Hence my position on ownership rights being applied to any living organism.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.