[d@DCC] Patenting Mice
russell at flora.ca
Thu Dec 5 13:51:54 EST 2002
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Alan DeKok wrote:
> "Jeremy McNicoll" <jeremy at mcnicoll.ca> wrote:
> > Looks like harvard cant patent genetically mutated mice in Canada.
> Canada does get some things right.
> As I recall, this case has been going on for years, and one of the
> questions from the judges was "but if the mice breed on their own, how
> will you sue them for patent infringment?"
This logic needs to be extended from animals to plants (IE: deal with
the Monsanto-seed problem that is causing considerable problems for
farmers) and then from plants to software (IE: FLOSS can be seen to be the
seeds to derivative works, making software patents and FLOSS incompatible
If we can't eradicate Software Patents in Canada, it would at least be
good to get a complete patent exception for FLOSS.
As to the date of the Patent act:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/P-4/ Patent Act ( R.S. 1985, c. P-4 )
Far too much of the patentability question is left to the patent office
and regulations. The patent office has a vested interest in adding more
and more things to be patentable, and thus is is a clear conflict of
interest on this policy -- this conflict must be resolved. Part of this
resolution will be to be more specific on the question on what is and is
not patentable being added to the patent act itself.
> The waffling response from the Harvard lawyers showed they couldn't
> defend their position.
> Alan DeKok.
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses,
VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen
and not a third party. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca
More information about the Discuss