Pages: [1] 2   Bas de page
«Imprimer»
Auteur Fil de discussion: Patents on living organism  (Lu 419 fois)
hoaxrunner
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Calgary, Alberta
Messages: 30
Karma: 1


« le: 25 juin 2010, 12:20:31 »
0

I just finished watching "The Future of Food" and just appalled how the multinational corporations forced a canadain farmer to burn his seed stock because of cross contamination of a GMO seed from a neighboring farm.

I just wanted some input from the rest of you and how this would affect our platform
Nuitari
Director-at-Large
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 250
Karma: 15


« Répondre #1 le: 25 juin 2010, 01:09:38 »
0

I don't think we will allow patents on living organisms.
However, we will certainly make sure that incidental infringement (like the spreading of seeds) is not ground for infringement.
Concerned Citizen
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Etobicoke-Lakeshore Riding
Messages: 340
Karma: 21


« Répondre #2 le: 25 juin 2010, 09:51:58 »
0

Yeah I've heard stories like that myself... I believe that we are 100% against genes and living things patents. You should not be able to patent a rose any more than you could patent yourself.

In my opinion the moment these multinational corporations encourage their 'patented' seeds to be planted in an uncontrolled environment. They should lose enforcement rights on neighboring farms because it makes no sense to attack someone for infringement when your own actions are causing the contamination.

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
-James Madison
Sean Hunt
Meeting Chairman
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Waterloo
Messages: 216
Karma: 6


« Répondre #3 le: 25 juin 2010, 11:52:49 »
0

The specific case of Monsato v. That Guy (I forget his real name) was shown to be willful infringement; it was not incidental that the seeds had spread, but they had in fact been collected by the farmer.

In any case, I agree that we shouldn't allow patenting of organisms or genes. Patenting the method of producing or raising them should be sufficient for large-scale commercial activity.
Mike Bleskie
English PR Director
PPCA Representative
*

Wiara i wolność.
Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Ottawa (formerly Greater Sudbury)
Messages: 167
Karma: 4


WWW
« Répondre #4 le: 25 juin 2010, 01:11:06 »
0

Several films I have watched discussed gene patents such as Food Inc. and  RiP!, but actually going through the lawsuits for Law Class really confirmed how widespread this is. This should definitely be confirmed as a platform point.

Jay Frank
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 308
Karma: 14


« Répondre #5 le: 25 juin 2010, 08:59:16 »
0

An in-depth investigation into ""Monsato"" will reveal a lot of things you really don't want to know.

J

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
-Plato
Sean Hunt
Meeting Chairman
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Waterloo
Messages: 216
Karma: 6


« Répondre #6 le: 26 juin 2010, 01:34:31 »
0

An in-depth investigation into ""Monsato"" will reveal a lot of things you really don't want to know.

J
Oh, I already know far too much about them. No thank you.
phro
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 34
Karma: 1


« Répondre #7 le: 1 juillet 2010, 12:55:19 »
0

I only have a passing knowledge of Monsanto and their business so please forgive any obvious ignorance here.  I'm curious how such a stance against patenting living organisms applies to Craig Venter's synthetic cell.  See this video for his own words about this work.

If it is your opinion that such a fully synthetic cell should be allowed to be patented, then from a strictly data driven point of view it sounds like you're saying that small manual changes to an evolved organism (IE. DNA remixes) are not new works.

Maybe I'm missing something in the difference between patent law and copyright law here, again please forgive my ignorance.  Are we talking about our mutual distaste for Monsanto and their business practices or the large issue of tailored life sciences?



Mapleson
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 45
Karma: 1


« Répondre #8 le: 18 septembre 2010, 01:20:02 »
0

I seem to represent a dissenting minority on the forums here, but it's mostly just minor nuance.  :Smiley

First, only difference between a synthetic cell and a natural cell is the process used to create it.  The cell itself is indistinguishable from a naturally occurring cell without specific additions to the process.

A process may be patented, while a generic product may not.  The specific process used by Craig Venter is his IP and he deserves fair compensation for any commercial use within a reasonable timeframe.  If another person independently developed a third process to create a generic cell, they could equally patient their process if it were clearly differentiated.

A non-generic product is patientable, but only as far as another product cannot be identical.  This is how we have "name brand" and "knock offs" selling nearly indistinguishable variations and all "generic" products producing identical results.

IMO, specific processes to produce a viable DNA-sequenced organism are and should remain patentable (how to clone); specific DNA-sequences are and should remain patentable (right to self ownership), but any variation of that specific DNA-sequence is not contained within that patent (right to self determination); any subsequent first-generation recombination of the specific DNA-sequence owe fair compensation to the patent holder (respect for parents); however, near variations of a specific DNA-sequence do not owe regard to a patent holder if not direct recombination (right to generic bastard).
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #9 le: 18 septembre 2010, 05:41:20 »
0

You raise an excellent point. I have no objection to patenting sufficiently-complex processes, subject of course to the much-limited patent scope and term that we'd like to see. However, I do object to the idea of patenting gene sequences. When two organisms could plausibly produce patent-infringing offspring, something is seriously broken.
Mapleson
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 45
Karma: 1


« Répondre #10 le: 18 septembre 2010, 05:54:31 »
0

You misunderstood my stance.  A first generation offspring is not patent-infringing (therefore no control over it's use by a patent holder), but fair compensation for creation is due to a creator.  With natural beings, we pay this with love.  
Mikkel Paulson
Party Leader
PPCA Representative
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Localisation: Edmonton
Messages: 982
Karma: 18


WWW
« Répondre #11 le: 18 septembre 2010, 06:02:54 »
0

I'm referring to organisms that are not genetically engineered. If I have a baby with a naturally-occurring DNA sequence that some GM corporation has already patented, does that baby belong to them? (More likely this would apply to nonhuman organisms, but the point stands.)
securr
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 27
Karma: 1


« Répondre #12 le: 18 septembre 2010, 06:08:09 »
0

I seem to represent a dissenting minority on the forums here, but it's mostly just minor nuance.  :Smiley

First, only difference between a synthetic cell and a natural cell is the process used to create it.  The cell itself is indistinguishable from a naturally occurring cell without specific additions to the process.

A process may be patented, while a generic product may not.  The specific process used by Craig Venter is his IP and he deserves fair compensation for any commercial use within a reasonable timeframe.  If another person independently developed a third process to create a generic cell, they could equally patient their process if it were clearly differentiated.

A non-generic product is patientable, but only as far as another product cannot be identical.  This is how we have "name brand" and "knock offs" selling nearly indistinguishable variations and all "generic" products producing identical results.

IMO, specific processes to produce a viable DNA-sequenced organism are and should remain patentable (how to clone); specific DNA-sequences are and should remain patentable (right to self ownership), but any variation of that specific DNA-sequence is not contained within that patent (right to self determination); any subsequent first-generation recombination of the specific DNA-sequence owe fair compensation to the patent holder (respect for parents); however, near variations of a specific DNA-sequence do not owe regard to a patent holder if not direct recombination (right to generic bastard).

I disagree. The problem with categorizing any sort of scientific advancement as intellectual property lies in the core principals of scientific discovery. The goal of science, I would argue, is to contribute to the sum total understanding of the natural world. There's an implicit sense of sharing in the scientific community, one that supersedes any ancillary  goals of profitability. While research may indeed be funded through private enterprise for the purpose of growing or expanding a business, that research is built upon a foundation of publicly accessible and publicly paid for scientific knowledge. A private enterprise can lay no moral (or even logical) claim to ownership over an advancement in science because said advancement is merely a single step built upon years of open, free and unowned scientific inquiry. There's no economic need to maintain that kind of patent simply because discovering the process first, and therefore being able to get the jump on your competitors, is incentive enough itself. Then, if your competitors use your data to discover a cheaper, faster more efficient process you, as a business, benefit enormously from that level of streamlining.

I'm arguing here simply from a business perspective. I'm not convinced that loose IP laws surrounding scientific advancement provides disincentive for a business to partake in scientific inquiry. I think the determination to guard any discovery a corporation makes as IP is just the natural kind of paranoia you develop when running multi-billion dollar companies.

Coming at it from another angle, the losses that society takes on when scientific discoveries are patentable are enormous. First, there's always the risk that these patents are simply going to be sat on and never used. We have similar problems in the software industry where companies find it lucrative to simple file patents en masse and then make their living by suing anyone that treads anywhere near them. I can't think of any specific cases involving, say, a pharmaceutical doing that but often public institutions that want to carry on research can't because their research may violate a particular patent - one that they can't afford to license. 

Then of course you have cases where traditional ways of living slam against intellectual property laws. The issues surrounding farmers collecting and saving seed (particularly in India post Green revolution) and "terminator seeds" genetically altered so they can't actually be saved are good examples. Companies may argue that they have a "right" to exercise control over their IP but, given the forecasts of global food shortages and the rising cost of the most basic forms of food (wheat, etc), I think the costs of allowing patents of living organisms and related "products" far outweigh any benefits.
Jay Frank
Forum Member
****

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 308
Karma: 14


« Répondre #13 le: 18 septembre 2010, 10:27:13 »
0

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html

""A new study shows that 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities.""

Not cool.

J

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
-Plato
Mapleson
Forum Member
*

Hors ligne Hors ligne

Messages: 45
Karma: 1


« Répondre #14 le: 19 septembre 2010, 10:31:01 »
0

I disagree. The problem with categorizing any sort of scientific advancement as intellectual property lies in the core principals of scientific discovery. The goal of science, I would argue, is to contribute to the sum total understanding of the natural world.
High-minded abstractions are fine, but at the end of the day, you've got to make a living (although I don't endorse Capitalistic society, I don't believe we'll be ready to give it up within the next 50 years, so we got to live our lives in the world).  If you have no recourse to earning from cognitive production, you cannot make a career out of cognitive production.  Therefore, you must spend more time and effort on other things (working at MacDonald's) to pay for nicities like food, water, and housing, rather than your prefered field of scientific exploration.

I think you are making a distinction between a corportation and a natural person that doesn't exist both are persons under Canadian law and treated equally.  If RIM isn't allowed to make money by selling Blackberry's, you aren't allowed to make money selling paintings.  The progress of science is not some smooth lamaniar flow, it is a series of unique insights and recombination of existing ideas that are cross-checked and re-checked.  Society deserves to benefit from the innonvation, but doesn't a creator deserve some recognition for doing what has never been done before?

That said, my vision of reformed IP strips rights from non-creator entities and give creators due regard in profits from commercial undertakings.  Non-commercial usage (a bit wider that "fair use" in the US) would not be restricted.  The model is Germany Confederation prior to the defeat of the Third Riche.  (Book: Geschichte und Wesen des Urheberrechts OR History and nature of copyright, by Eckhard Höffner; http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html)
Pages: [1] 2   Haut de page
«Imprimer»
 
Aller à: